UAERJ Pty Ltd v Jupiters Ltd

[2014] NSWCA 213

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Equity
2. › Assignment or charge of property
3. › Authority of agent to assign principal's property
4. › Whether agent had authority to deal with ticket sale proceeds on behalf of principal
5. › Whether principal precluded from withdrawing irrevocable directions to pay
1. Agency
2. › Ostensible authority
3. › Representation to third party
4. › Whether ostensible authority conferred on agent relevant where third party beneficiary (not representee) claims
5. › Whether principal's withdrawal of authority effective against venue
1. Equity
2. › Election
3. › Alternative and cumulative remedies
4. › Whether conduct in earlier proceedings precluded bringing present proceedings
5. › Whether claims against different parties were alternative or cumulative
1. Contract
2. › Formation
3. › Consideration
4. › Whether irrevocable direction to pay constituted a contract
5. › Whether past consideration sufficient
6. › Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW), s 12
7. › Property Law Act 1969 (WA), ss 11, 20

Quick Take

A purportedly irrevocable direction to pay does not bind the principal where no consideration supports it and it is not executed as a deed; it may be withdrawn before being acted upon. Ostensible authority conferred on an agent vis-à-vis one party (a venue) does not assist a different party (a creditor) who received no representation from the principal. Claims against different parties founded on the same underlying wrong (agent's lack of authority) are cumulative, not alternative, and the doctrine of election does not preclude pursuing both.