TSAKOS v WOLMINA PTY LTD [1989] NSWCA 216

TSAKOS v WOLMINA PTY LTD [1989] NSWCA 216

There was sufficient evidence to support the trial judge's finding that the defendants were disclosed principals whose agent had authority to contract for them, and the plaintiff was entitled to sue them for the contract price; the application to adduce fresh evidence was properly refused due to inadequate...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Tsakos; Respondent: Wolmina Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 March 1989
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Agency of Undisclosed Principal, Ratification in Agency Law, Adducing Fresh Evidence on Appeal, Liability of Principal in Agency Contracts, Adjournment Procedure on Appeal
Agency Contract Law Civil Procedure Agency of Undisclosed Principal Ratification in Agency Law Adducing Fresh Evidence on Appeal Liability of Principal in Agency Contracts Adjournment Procedure on Appeal

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

Parties

Tsakos

Appellant

Wolmina Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants could be liable as principals where the agent's status was not disclosed
  2. 2 Whether it was proper to refuse an application to admit fresh evidence on appeal regarding the agency relationship

Ratio Decidendi

There was sufficient evidence to support the trial judge's finding that the defendants were disclosed principals whose agent had authority to contract for them, and the plaintiff was entitled to sue them for the contract price; the application to adduce fresh evidence was properly refused due to inadequate explanation for its absence at trial and procedural defaults.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • Appellants to pay the respondent's costs.