GROGAN V. COEN AND ANOTHER

GROGAN V. COEN AND ANOTHER

The plaintiff's evidence was unsatisfactory and incapable of supporting any of the claims advanced; there was no evidence of a binding contract or of a genuine legal claim for which compromise could constitute consideration, and the findings of the jury were unreasonable on the evidence. The appeal must be dismissed, but the order as to costs of the appeal before the Supreme Court should be set aside in light of the Legal Assistance Act.

Parties
Plaintiff: F.J. Grogan; Defendant (executor of John Bede Grogan's Will): Coen; Defendant (executor of John Bede Grogan's Will): Another (executor)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 March 1946
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court of Australia Appeal From Full Court of Supreme Court of New South Wales
Outcome
appeal dismissed except as to costs order
Legal Topics
Agreements With Respect to Deceased Estates, Enforceability of Family Arrangements, Costs Provisions Under Legal Assistance Act
Contract Agreements With Respect to Deceased Estates Enforceability of Family Arrangements Costs Provisions Under Legal Assistance Act

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

F.J. Grogan

Plaintiff

Coen

Defendant (executor of John Bede Grogan's Will)

Another (executor)

Defendant (executor of John Bede Grogan's Will)

Procedural Posture

Appeal / High Court of Australia Appeal From Full Court of Supreme Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a verdict for the plaintiff could be supported by evidence of an enforceable agreement or compromise
  2. 2 Whether a jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff based on his evidence
  3. 3 Effect of the Legal Assistance Act 1943 on costs order

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's evidence was unsatisfactory and incapable of supporting any of the claims advanced; there was no evidence of a binding contract or of a genuine legal claim for which compromise could constitute consideration, and the findings of the jury were unreasonable on the evidence. The appeal must be dismissed, but the order as to costs of the appeal before the Supreme Court should be set aside in light of the Legal Assistance Act.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed except as to costs order

Orders

  • Order of Full Court varied by setting aside the part of the order directing that the plaintiff should pay the costs of the appeal in the Supreme Court.
  • Otherwise appeal dismissed.