Leipner v McLean [1909] HCA 17

Leipner v McLean [1909] HCA 17

The High Court held that it was a question for the jury whether the oral promise regarding the application of the money was collateral to the main transaction or a term of the principal agreement reduced to writing. Evidence existed from which a jury could find authority in the agent, and that the collateral promise was not within the Statute of Frauds if found to be a separate agreement.

Parties
Appellant; Plaintiff: Mary S. Leipner; Respondent; Defendant: Norman McLean
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 April 1909
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of NSW Ruling Denying New Trial After Nonsuit at First Instance
Outcome
Appeal allowed. New trial ordered.
Legal Topics
Statute of Frauds, Collateral Agreements, Agency Authority, Mortgage, Breach of Contract, Evidence of Authority
Contract Law Property Law Statute of Frauds Collateral Agreements Agency Authority Mortgage Breach of Contract Evidence of Authority

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mary S. Leipner

Appellant; Plaintiff

Norman McLean

Respondent; Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of NSW Ruling Denying New Trial After Nonsuit at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the agreement to pay a sum of money into court on behalf of the plaintiff was within section 4 of the Statute of Frauds and required written evidence
  2. 2 Whether the alleged agent had authority to bind the respondent to the agreement

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held that it was a question for the jury whether the oral promise regarding the application of the money was collateral to the main transaction or a term of the principal agreement reduced to writing. Evidence existed from which a jury could find authority in the agent, and that the collateral promise was not within the Statute of Frauds if found to be a separate agreement.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. New trial ordered.

Orders

  • Order appealed from discharged.
  • Rule made absolute for a new trial with costs of the rule.