Construction Engineering (Aust) Pty Ltd v Hexyl Pty Ltd [1985] HCA 13

Construction Engineering (Aust) Pty Ltd v Hexyl Pty Ltd [1985] HCA 13

Tambel had no authority to contract as agent for Hexyl as an undisclosed principal because the partnership deed negated any such authority; Tambel entered the contract as principal, not agent. Construction Engineering did not know or believe Tambel to be a partner, thus the requirements under the Partnership Act for actual or ostensible authority are not satisfied. Hexyl is not liable under the building contract as principal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
['agency of Partners' 'undisclosed Principals' 'building Contract' 'arbitration Clause']
['commercial Law' 'partnership Law'] ['agency of Partners' 'undisclosed Principals' 'building Contract' 'arbitration Clause']

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 / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Tambel had authority to contract as agent for Hexyl as an undisclosed principal under the building contract' 'Whether Hexyl is liable to Construction Engineering as a principal under the contract']

Ratio Decidendi

Tambel had no authority to contract as agent for Hexyl as an undisclosed principal because the partnership deed negated any such authority; Tambel entered the contract as principal, not agent. Construction Engineering did not know or believe Tambel to be a partner, thus the requirements under the Partnership Act for actual or ostensible authority are not satisfied. Hexyl is not liable under the building contract as principal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs']