Bennett v Colonial Sugar Refining Company Limited [1911] HCA 41

Bennett v Colonial Sugar Refining Company Limited [1911] HCA 41

The facts that the agreement was made by a joint-stock company and was terminable at the will of the company do not take it out of the provisions of the Masters and Servants Act 1861. No sufficient question of law justifies a grant of special leave to appeal.

Parties
Appellant: Bennett; Respondent: Colonial Sugar Refining Company Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 September 1911
Procedural Posture
Application for Special Leave to Appeal / Application for Special Leave to Appeal to the High Court From the Supreme Court of Queensland
Outcome
special leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Master and Servant, Definition of Master, Termination of Contract, Agreement Under Masters and Servants Act 1861

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bennett

Appellant

Colonial Sugar Refining Company Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Special Leave to Appeal / Application for Special Leave to Appeal to the High Court From the Supreme Court of Queensland

  1. 1 Whether a joint-stock company may be a 'master' under the Masters and Servants Act 1861 (Qld)
  2. 2 Whether an agreement terminable at the employer's will is within the Act
  3. 3 Whether reasonable cause for refusal to perform the contract existed

Ratio Decidendi

The facts that the agreement was made by a joint-stock company and was terminable at the will of the company do not take it out of the provisions of the Masters and Servants Act 1861. No sufficient question of law justifies a grant of special leave to appeal.

Court Disposition

special leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Special leave to appeal refused.