Anderson v Densley [1953] HCA 47

Anderson v Densley [1953] HCA 47

Although a writing need not expressly describe the agent as a commission agent or mention commission, the only relevant writing, Exhibit 9, at most acknowledged the plaintiff's engagement to act as agent for the sale of the defendant's land to Noel Pryce for £9,542. It did not evidence an engagement or appointment to sell all of the defendant's grazing assets, including chattels and livestock, in the later February 1952 transaction. Section 23 (1) (b) therefore barred recovery of the claimed commission.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal Concerning a Commission Agent's Claim for Commission on the Sale of Grazing Properties, Plant and Livestock / Appeal to the High Court of Australia From Judgment for the Plaintiff in the Supreme Court of Queensland After Jury Trial
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs; judgment below set aside; judgment entered for the defendant with costs including two refreshers.
Legal Topics
['commission Agent Remuneration' 'engagement or Appointment in Writing' 'effective Cause of Sale' 'sale of Grazing Properties, Plant and Livestock' 'the Auctioneers and Commission Agents Acts 1922 to 1951 Q.']
['contract Law' 'agency' 'statutory Interpretation' 'real Property'] ['commission Agent Remuneration' 'engagement or Appointment in Writing' 'effective Cause of Sale' 'sale of Grazing Properties, Plant and Livestock' 'the Auctioneers and Commission Agents Acts 1922 to 1951 Q.']

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

Appeal Concerning a Commission Agent's Claim for Commission on the Sale of Grazing Properties, Plant and Livestock / Appeal to the High Court of Australia From Judgment for the Plaintiff in the Supreme Court of Queensland After Jury Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether s. 23 (1) (b) of The Auctioneers and Commission Agents Acts 1922 to 1951 Q. barred the plaintiff from recovering commission.' 'Whether an engagement or appointment in writing must expressly describe the agent as a commission agent or refer to remuneration by commission.' "Whether Exhibit 9 evidenced an engagement or appointment of the plaintiff to act as commission agent in respect of the February 1952 transaction or the sale of all of the defendant's grazing assets."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although a writing need not expressly describe the agent as a commission agent or mention commission, the only relevant writing, Exhibit 9, at most acknowledged the plaintiff's engagement to act as agent for the sale of the defendant's land to Noel Pryce for £9,542. It did not evidence an engagement or appointment to sell all of the defendant's grazing assets, including chattels and livestock, in the later February 1952 transaction. Section 23 (1) (b) therefore barred recovery of the claimed commission.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs; judgment below set aside; judgment entered for the defendant with costs including two refreshers.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed with costs.' 'Order that judgment below be set aside and in lieu thereof that judgment be entered for the defendant with costs including two refreshers.']