Lion White Lead Limited v Rogers [1918] HCA 71

Lion White Lead Limited v Rogers [1918] HCA 71

Since the company did not have the guaranteed £20,000 working capital as required by the original contract, and the breach was fundamental, the respondent Rogers was entitled to a declaration discharging him from further performance of the contract, notwithstanding Blackman's position.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Lion White Lead Limited; Appellant: Samuel Bowen; Appellant: Henry Petrie Fletcher; Respondent: Rogers (Charles Robert Rogers); Respondent: Jervis George Blackman; Respondent: Catherine Fletcher
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 November 1918
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court of Australia; Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales (equity)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Joint Contracts, Breach of Contract, Rectification, Parties to Proceedings, Proprietary Interest
Contract Law Equity Joint Contracts Breach of Contract Rectification Parties to Proceedings Proprietary Interest

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 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lion White Lead Limited

Appellant

Samuel Bowen

Appellant

Henry Petrie Fletcher

Appellant

Rogers (Charles Robert Rogers)

Respondent

Jervis George Blackman

Respondent

Catherine Fletcher

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / High Court of Australia; Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales (equity)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a party to a joint contract can refuse to proceed with the contract after a fundamental breach by the counterparty despite the co-contractor’s wishes
  2. 2 Whether the variation to the contract and subsequent actions discharged the respondent from further performance
  3. 3 What proprietary interest, if any, Blackman had in the process

Ratio Decidendi

Since the company did not have the guaranteed £20,000 working capital as required by the original contract, and the breach was fundamental, the respondent Rogers was entitled to a declaration discharging him from further performance of the contract, notwithstanding Blackman's position.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Declaration that the respondent Rogers is discharged from further performance of the contract.
  • Company to rectify register of members by striking out the names of Rogers and Blackman as holders of 4,000 shares.