Rowe v Metroll SA Pty Ltd

[2021] NSWCA 196

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Agency
2. › Ostensible authority
3. › Holding out by conduct
4. › Sole director copied into emails from agent using company email address and corporate signature
5. › Whether failure to disavow agent's authority constituted holding out
6. › Whether substance of email exchanges showing close collaboration sufficient to establish ostensible authority
1. Contract
2. › Guarantee and indemnity
3. › Construction
4. › Guarantee expressed in favour of named company 'and each related body corporate that supplies goods or services to the Customer'
5. › Whether guarantee extended to related body corporate that in fact supplied goods
6. › Whether related body corporate could enforce guarantee without joining named company
7. › Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 50

Quick Take

Ostensible authority may be established not only by the form of communications (email addresses and corporate signatures) but by the substance of email exchanges showing close collaboration between the alleged agent and the principal's sole director in finalising orders.

Case Details

Citation[2021] NSWCA 196

CourtNSWCA

JurisdictionNew South Wales

Unlock so much more with Barrister AI

The full text is available to signed-in members.

Relies on7

2021Metroll SA Pty Ltd v Powerpark Systems Pty LtdNSWDC 102
2017Boyd v ThornNSWCA 210
2016CGU Insurance Limited v BlakeleyHCA 2
2015Belgravia Nominees Pty Ltd v Lowe Pty LtdWASCA 143
and 3 more after sign-in

Create free account

Already have an account? Sign in