Norton v Taylor [1905] HCA 8
The defendant was not 'interested' in the contract within sec. 24 of the Sydney Corporation Act, 1902, as the mere provision of quotations and subsequent supply of goods by the defendant's firm to the contractor did not establish a pecuniary interest in the Council contract; there was no evidence of a contractual relationship or condition linking payment to Council approval.
- Parties
- Applicant: Complainant; Respondent: Defendant
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 31 March 1905
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Special Leave to Appeal / Decision on Special Leave Application
- Outcome
- special leave to appeal refused
- Legal Topics
- Disqualification of Councillor, Conflict of Interest, Interpretation of Statutory Provisions, Pecuniary Interest in Contracts
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Complainant
Applicant
Defendant
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application for Special Leave to Appeal / Decision on Special Leave Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a councillor whose firm supplied timber to a contractor carrying out a contract for the City Council was 'interested' in the contract within the meaning of sec. 24 of the Sydney Corporation Act, 1902, so as to be disqualified from office.
Ratio Decidendi
The defendant was not 'interested' in the contract within sec. 24 of the Sydney Corporation Act, 1902, as the mere provision of quotations and subsequent supply of goods by the defendant's firm to the contractor did not establish a pecuniary interest in the Council contract; there was no evidence of a contractual relationship or condition linking payment to Council approval.
Court Disposition
special leave to appeal refused
Orders
- Special leave to appeal to the High Court refused.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment