Rejfek v McElroy [1965] HCA 46

Rejfek v McElroy [1965] HCA 46

The trial judge misdirected himself by requiring the appellants to prove fraudulent deceit beyond reasonable doubt in a civil action. The correct standard was reasonable satisfaction on the probabilities, although the seriousness of fraud may require clear and cogent proof. Because the misdirection affected the determination of the appellants' claims, the judgment had to be set aside and a new trial ordered; the Court was not persuaded that the appellants' evidence necessarily showed an election not to rescind, so all issues remained for trial.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Concerning Rescission of a Contract and Damages for Fraudulent Representations / Appeal From Judgment of the Supreme Court of Queensland; New Trial Ordered
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs; judgment set aside; new trial ordered.
Legal Topics
['standard of Proof in Civil Proceedings' 'fraudulent Misrepresentation' 'deceit' 'rescission' 'new Trial' 'binding Precedent']
['civil Procedure' 'contract Law' 'tort Law' 'evidence'] ['standard of Proof in Civil Proceedings' 'fraudulent Misrepresentation' 'deceit' 'rescission' 'new Trial' 'binding Precedent']

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

Civil Appeal Concerning Rescission of a Contract and Damages for Fraudulent Representations / Appeal From Judgment of the Supreme Court of Queensland; New Trial Ordered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether allegations of fraud or deceit in a civil action must be proved beyond reasonable doubt or to the civil standard of reasonable satisfaction on the probabilities.' "Whether the trial judge's application of the criminal standard of proof required the judgment to be set aside and a new trial ordered." 'Whether any new trial should be limited to the damages claim because the appellants had elected not to rescind the contract.']

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge misdirected himself by requiring the appellants to prove fraudulent deceit beyond reasonable doubt in a civil action. The correct standard was reasonable satisfaction on the probabilities, although the seriousness of fraud may require clear and cogent proof. Because the misdirection affected the determination of the appellants' claims, the judgment had to be set aside and a new trial ordered; the Court was not persuaded that the appellants' evidence necessarily showed an election not to rescind, so all issues remained for trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs; judgment set aside; new trial ordered.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed with costs.' 'Order of the Supreme Court of Queensland (Douglas J.) and the judgment entered pursuant thereto set aside.' 'In lieu thereof order that a new trial of the action be had and that the costs of the first trial be costs in the new trial.']