Morgan v Babcock and Wilcox Limited [1929] HCA 25

Morgan v Babcock and Wilcox Limited [1929] HCA 25

Secondary evidence of a confidential letter from the company’s manager to its managing director was properly admitted as the letter was within the company’s power after due notice. The circumstantial evidence, including the timing and manner of payment, supported an inference that the company (via its managing director) paid the bribe. The burden was on the company to prove proceedings were commenced out of time by reference to the six-month discovery rule. The conviction should be restored.

Parties
Appellant: William Morgan; Respondent: Babcock & Wilcox Ltd.
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales (full Court), After Conviction in Magistrates’ Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction restored; rule nisi discharged with costs.
Legal Topics
Secret Commissions, Bribery, Burden of Proof, Admissibility of Secondary Evidence, Limitation Periods, Corporate Responsibility for Crimes
Criminal Law Corporate Criminal Liability Evidence Secret Commissions Bribery Burden of Proof Admissibility of Secondary Evidence Limitation Periods +1 more

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 34 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Morgan

Appellant

Babcock & Wilcox Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales (full Court), After Conviction in Magistrates’ Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether secondary evidence of the contents of a confidential letter was admissible
  2. 2 Whether evidence supported payment of a bribe by the company
  3. 3 Whether the offence was committed within the jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

Secondary evidence of a confidential letter from the company’s manager to its managing director was properly admitted as the letter was within the company’s power after due notice. The circumstantial evidence, including the timing and manner of payment, supported an inference that the company (via its managing director) paid the bribe. The burden was on the company to prove proceedings were commenced out of time by reference to the six-month discovery rule. The conviction should be restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction restored; rule nisi discharged with costs.

Orders

  • Conviction of Babcock & Wilcox Ltd. restored.
  • Rule nisi discharged with costs.