Coles v Adeney [1914] HCA 19

Coles v Adeney [1914] HCA 19

There was evidence on which the trial judge could reasonably find as he did; the finding of fact by the trial judge, based on oral evidence, should not be disturbed on appeal where there is evidence to support it.

Parties
Appellant: Albert Phipps Coles; Appellant: Sydney Thurston Haynes; Respondent: Alexander William Adeney
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 March 1914
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment After Appeal From Supreme Court of Victoria
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Commission Agreements, Oral Contracts, Agency
Contract Law Civil Procedure Commission Agreements Oral Contracts Agency

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Albert Phipps Coles

Appellant

Sydney Thurston Haynes

Appellant

Alexander William Adeney

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment After Appeal From Supreme Court of Victoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a binding contract for commission at the rate of 15 per cent.
  2. 2 Whether oral evidence established agreement for commission on the sale of land
  3. 3 Grounds for disturbing a trial judge's finding of fact where evidence is oral

Ratio Decidendi

There was evidence on which the trial judge could reasonably find as he did; the finding of fact by the trial judge, based on oral evidence, should not be disturbed on appeal where there is evidence to support it.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.