Norton v Taylor [1905] HCA 8

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.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Complainant

Applicant

Defendant

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Special Leave to Appeal / Decision on Special Leave Application

  1. 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.