Pachos v Davison [2009] NSWSC 228

Pachos v Davison [2009] NSWSC 228

The appeal was dismissed because there was no actual agency and no ostensible agency: the first defendant did not hold out the second defendant as authorised to bind him, was not negligent, and was not on notice that the second defendant was misrepresenting her position. Since there was no contractual relationship between the plaintiff and the first defendant, the first defendant was not liable to pay for the use of the vehicle or the claimed damage.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Contract Appeal From Local Court / Appeal Under Part 50 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 From Dismissal of the Plaintiff's Claim
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['ostensible Authority' 'agency' 'appeal From Local Court' 'costs']
['contract'] ['ostensible Authority' 'agency' 'appeal From Local Court' 'costs']

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

Contract Appeal From Local Court / Appeal Under Part 50 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 From Dismissal of the Plaintiff's Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the second defendant had apparent or ostensible authority to bind the first defendant to a contract with the plaintiff for the lease of a racing ute.' "Whether the first defendant's conduct amounted to a holding out that the second defendant was authorised to act on his behalf." "Whether the first defendant was obliged to pay for the use of the plaintiff's vehicle despite the absence of a contractual relationship."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because there was no actual agency and no ostensible agency: the first defendant did not hold out the second defendant as authorised to bind him, was not negligent, and was not on notice that the second defendant was misrepresenting her position. Since there was no contractual relationship between the plaintiff and the first defendant, the first defendant was not liable to pay for the use of the vehicle or the claimed damage.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed.' "By consent, the plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs assessed and agreed at $11,000 inclusive of GST and to be paid within 28 days of 30 March 2009."]