The 'business of the kind carried on by the firm' under s 5 Partnership Act 1892 is determined by what the business would reasonably seem to be to someone dealing with the firm, applying the common law doctrine of ostensible authority. A judge cannot determine what is 'usual' in a particular kind of business by reference to 'common sense' alone — evidence, judicial notice under s 144 Evidence Act 1995, or inference from proved facts is required. The necessity test from Union Bank v Fisher is limited to what is necessary to carry out a particular task within the business, not what is necessary to carry on the business type generally — an act may be usual for a type of business even if not strictly necessary to carry it on. Holding money in a custodian account as an essential part of an outlandish investment scheme promoted by an accountant in his personal interest is not within the usual way of carrying on the business of chartered accountants, even though holding money in a trust account generally is.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 15 later cases that cite this judgment.
4 of the 15 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.