SMITH v ASHER REAL ESTATE [2000] NSWCA 227

SMITH v ASHER REAL ESTATE [2000] NSWCA 227

The appeal was dismissed because, even assuming the appellant had an arguable case about the alleged agreement, the material provided no basis for an order against Samuel Salisbury-Baker: the relevant conversations were with Ernest Salisbury-Baker alone, the company was not asserted to be a party to the agreement, there was no evidence that Samuel held relevant shares or had a relevant role at the time, and there was no finding or evidence that Ernest acted as agent for Samuel.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 August 2000
Procedural Posture
Contract Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court Judgment of Hulme J
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['promise to Transfer Shares to Employee' 'agency of Promisor' 'appeal Against Dismissal of Cross Claim']
['contract Law' 'agency' 'employment'] ['promise to Transfer Shares to Employee' 'agency of Promisor' 'appeal Against Dismissal of Cross Claim']

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

Procedural Posture

Contract Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court Judgment of Hulme J

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appellant had any prospect of obtaining relief against Samuel Salisbury-Baker on the alleged agreement to transfer shares.' 'Whether Ernest Salisbury-Baker acted as agent for Samuel Salisbury-Baker in making the alleged promise.' 'Whether the appeal as constituted could succeed when Ernest Salisbury-Baker, the alleged contracting party, was not a respondent.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because, even assuming the appellant had an arguable case about the alleged agreement, the material provided no basis for an order against Samuel Salisbury-Baker: the relevant conversations were with Ernest Salisbury-Baker alone, the company was not asserted to be a party to the agreement, there was no evidence that Samuel held relevant shares or had a relevant role at the time, and there was no finding or evidence that Ernest acted as agent for Samuel.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs.']