Wood v Little [1921] HCA 50

Wood v Little [1921] HCA 50

The agency contract between a shire councillor and landowner, where the councillor's public duty includes advising the Board as to the purchase and his private interest is to secure commission on the sale, has a tendency to interfere with the proper discharge of public duty and is void as against public policy....

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Plaintiff: Frederick Joseph Little; Defendant: Herbert Edward Wood
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 November 1921
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Decision
Outcome
appeal allowed, action dismissed
Legal Topics
Legality of Contracts, Public Policy, Conflict of Interest, Fiduciary Duty, Local Government
Contract Law Public Law Legality of Contracts Public Policy Conflict of Interest Fiduciary Duty Local Government

Source-derived case record

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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Frederick Joseph Little

Plaintiff

Herbert Edward Wood

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the contract for commission between a shire councillor and landowner illegal and void as contrary to public policy due to conflict of interest and duty?
  2. 2 Does section 181 of the Local Government Act 1915 (Vict.) exonerate the councillor or render such a contract lawful?

Ratio Decidendi

The agency contract between a shire councillor and landowner, where the councillor's public duty includes advising the Board as to the purchase and his private interest is to secure commission on the sale, has a tendency to interfere with the proper discharge of public duty and is void as against public policy. Section 181 of the Local Government Act 1915 (Vict.) does not exonerate or render lawful such contracts.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed, action dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the defendant.
  • Respondent to pay costs of the action, appeal to Supreme Court, and this appeal.