Bruce v Tyley [1916] HCA 34

Bruce v Tyley [1916] HCA 34

The contract between Bruce and the military authorities was a personal contract and not capable of being delegated or assigned; as such, A. A. Tyley had no enforceable contract with Bruce, and Mrs. Tyley, as his gratuitous assignee, could not sue. Furthermore, if the contract purported to bind Bruce not to contract with the Crown except on terms permitting Tyley to share, it was contrary to public policy and void.

Parties
Appellant: William Herbert Bruce; Respondent: Albert Arthur Tyley; Respondent: Emily Mabel Tyley
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 May 1916
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court Appeal From the Supreme Court of South Australia
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Judgment for the defendant.
Legal Topics
Personal Contract With the Crown, Assignment of Contract, Public Policy, Delegation of Duties, Sub Contracts, Validity of Contract
Contract Law Public Law Personal Contract With the Crown Assignment of Contract Public Policy Delegation of Duties Sub Contracts Validity of Contract

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 3 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Herbert Bruce

Appellant

Albert Arthur Tyley

Respondent

Emily Mabel Tyley

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / High Court Appeal From the Supreme Court of South Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contract between Bruce and Tyley was a personal contract with the Crown not capable of delegation or assignment
  2. 2 Whether the assignment from A. A. Tyley to Mrs. Tyley entitled her to sue for breach of contract
  3. 3 Whether the contract was contrary to public policy and void

Ratio Decidendi

The contract between Bruce and the military authorities was a personal contract and not capable of being delegated or assigned; as such, A. A. Tyley had no enforceable contract with Bruce, and Mrs. Tyley, as his gratuitous assignee, could not sue. Furthermore, if the contract purported to bind Bruce not to contract with the Crown except on terms permitting Tyley to share, it was contrary to public policy and void.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Judgment for the defendant.

Orders

  • Judgment appealed from set aside and judgment entered for defendant.