Blog

Posted on

What is a deed inter-parties or indenture?

A deed inter-parties is a deed which expressly states that it is made between two or more named persons.

The difference between a deed poll and a deed inter partes is absolutely crucial because of the difference as to who may enforce the deed in question. It is clear that any person named or sufficiently indicated in a deed poll may sue to enforce any obligation undertaken in that deed poll in his favour despite the fact that he is, by definition, not a party to the deed poll and has not executed the deed poll.

By contrast however a person cannot sue on a covenant made in his favour which is contained in a deed inter partes unless he is a party (and named as a party) to the relevant deed. Even if a third party executes a deed inter partes he cannot sue on it unless he is named as a party to the deed. The only way in which a person who is not a party to a deed inter partes can enforce a covenant in his favour contained in that deed is to come within one of the exceptions to the Doctrine of Privity e.g. he would be able to enforce the covenant if he was able to show that there was a completely constituted trust of the covenant in his favour.

Consequently it is vital where you are preparing a deed poll which is to be enforceable by third parties that you do not use language which suggests that there is more than one party to the deed and that it is a deed inter partes. For example avoid phrases such as “this deed is made between”. Conversely, if you are preparing a deed inter parties, make sure that any person who you wish to be able to enforce the deed is named as a party (unless one of the named parties is to be a trustee of the benefit of the deed for a third party beneficiary).

The other historical distinction was between a deed poll and an indenture. Whereas a deed poll, made by one party only, had a shaved or “polled” edge, an indenture, which was a deed to which two or more persons are parties and which evidenced some act, bargain, contract, conveyance, covenant or agreement between them other than the mere consent to join in expressing the same active intention (i.e. the joint and several guarantors example above), was a deed with serrated or indented (hence the term “indenture”) edges so that each party had a similar deed with the two parts being supposed to fit together as a sort of a tally.

The practice of indenting originated in early times when deeds were short; often a deed between parties would be written out two or more times (according to the number of parties) on a single sheet of parchment which was then divided by cutting it with an irregular edge so that each part could be fitted into the other to demonstrate its authenticity.

At first this rule was very strict and a deed executed before 1845 was not an indenture unless it was actually indented, even though it was stated to be an indenture. However in 1845 legislation in the UK was passed providing that a deed between parties has the effect of an indenture even though the parchment on which it is written was not actually indented.

Consequently for all practical purposes the term “indenture” is now a thing of the past and the only real important differentiation nowadays is between deed polls and deeds inter partes.

Posted on

What is a Deed Poll?

It is a basic rule of Australian contract law that, save for limited exceptions, a contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations arising under it on any person except the parties to the contract. This basic rule is known as the “Doctrine of Privity” and there are several different aspects of the doctrine namely:

  1. a person cannot enforce rights under a contract to which he is not a party;
  2. a person who is not party to a contract cannot have contractual liabilities imposed on him by that contract; and
  3. contractual remedies are designed to compensate parties to the contract, not third parties

Deed polls constitute one of the limited exceptions to the basic doctrine of privity under Australian law; they are flexible and, provided they are used carefully, can be of great assistance in capital markets and other finance type transactions.

Lets start with a little bit of history. A deed poll is a deed made by and expressing the active intention of one party only, or two or more persons who join together in expressing a common active intention of them all e.g. a deed poll by two or more guarantors whose liability is joint and several.

The name deed poll comes from the fact that historically the parchment required for such deeds had been shaved even or “polled” at the top. This was historically in contrast to an indenture (see below). The most important fact to note in relation to deed polls is that they are the act of one party only (or two or more persons acting together i.e. the joint and several guarantors example above); in essence they are one sided unilateral instruments to which there is only one party not a two sided (bilateral) instrument like a contract.

A deed poll must be distinguished from a deed inter partes and an indenture.

See next Blog deed inter-parties.

Posted on

Doctrine of Privity

The basic Doctrine of Privity is that only parties to a contract may enforce that contact and that a third person who is not a party to the contract may not, unless he can take advantage of one of the limited exceptions to the doctrine, enforce a contact to which he is not a party even if that contract is made for his benefit. For example, if A promises B that A will pay $100 to C if C performs a piece of work, C, having performed the relevant piece of work, cannot sue A for the $100. (Interestingly, in this example, B could also not compel A to pay the $100 to C as B has supplied no consideration for A’s promise unless the facts are such that B agreed to procure performance by C.

It is generally agreed that the modern doctrine of privity was established in 1861 in Tweddle v. Atkinson. In that case the fathers of a groom and bride, in pursuance of an oral contract made between the fathers before their children’s marriage, agreed together in writing to pay the groom, in one case £200 and in the other case £100, adding that the groom should have full power to sue them in any court of law for those sums. The bride’s father failed to pay and the groom, who was not a party to the contract between the fathers, sued the bride’s father for the payment promised by the bride’s father under the contract. The groom’s claim was dismissed on the basis that no stranger to a contract could take advantage of that contract even though made for his benefit.

The Doctrine of Privity was approved by the House of Lords in Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd. v. Selfridge & Co. Ltd. in 1915 where Lord Haldane said:

“In the law of England certain principles are fundamental. One is that only a person who is a party to a contract can sue on it. Our law knows nothing of a jus quaesitum tertio arising by way of contract. Such a right may be conferred by way of property, as for example, under a trust, but it cannot be conferred on a stranger to a contract as a right to enforce the contract in personam”.

This, however, cut little ice with Lord Denning who made several attempts in the 1950’s to allow rights of suit by third party beneficiaries; despite this, however, the House of Lords reaffirmed the general Doctrine of Privity in Midland Silicones Ltd. v. Scruttons Ltd. (Lord Denning dissenting) in 1962.

WARNING: The Doctrine of Privity is an area of the law where concepts of equity or fairness have little or no standing whatsoever. If A promises B that if B (or C) will do something A will pay a cash sum to C there is no equity in the rule that says that C cannot enforce this promise; but that is currently the law so if you wish to confer an enforceable benefit on a stranger to a contract you must make use of one of the exceptions to the Doctrine of Privity and not simply rely on vague concepts of equity/clean hands and all that.

Posted on

Beneficiary actions – ‘Special Circumstances’

Source: Colin R Price & Associates Pty Ltd v Four Oaks Pty Ltd [2017] FCAFC 75

  1. Where “special circumstances” exist, a beneficiary under a trust such as Grovan may bring proceedings that ordinarily should be brought by the trustee in his, her or its own right against a third party or other beneficiary on any cause of action, legal equitable or statutory, that the trustee has against that defendant. The beneficiary must join the trustee and the third party as defendants if such special circumstances exist: TAL Life Ltd v Shuetrim (2016) 91 NSWLR 439; [2016] NSWCA 68 (TAL) at [54] (Leeming JA with whom Beazley P and Emmett AJA agreed); Lidden v Composite Buyers Ltd (1996) 67 FCR 560 (Lidden) at 563-564 (Finn J); Ramage v Waclaw (1988) 12 NSWLR 84 (Ramage) at 91-93 (Powell J); Sharpe v San Paulo Railway Co (1873) LR 8 Ch App 597 at 609-610 (James LJ). See too: Heydon JD and Leeming MJ, Jacobs’Law of Trusts in Australia (7th ed, Butterworths, 2006) at [2303].
  2. In Alexander v Perpetual Trustees WA Ltd (2004) 216 CLR 109; [2004] HCA 7 (Alexander) at [55]-[56] Gleeson CJ, Gummow and Hayne JJ (and see also Callinan J at [163]-[164] with whom McHugh J agreed at [67]) said that one reason for the restriction – to where there are “specialcircumstances” of a beneficiary’s right to sue a third party directly on a cause of action that ought to be properly brought by a trustee – was to avoid the vexation of the third party by multiple suits. Their Honours approved what Powell J said in Ramage at 91-92, that the “special circumstances” were not confined to collusion between the trustee and the third party or the insolvency of the trustee. Their Honours went on to say that the general principle was to be found in the following passage from Scott on Trusts (4th ed, 1989) Vol 4 at [282]:

    The interests of the beneficiaries of a trust are protected against a third person acting adversely to the trustee through proceedings brought against him by the trustee and not by the beneficiaries. As long as the trustee is ready and willing to take the proper proceedings against the third person, the beneficiaries cannot maintain a suit against him.

  3. In Alexander, Gleeson CJ, Gummow and Hayne JJ (at [56]) and Callinan J (at [163]) referred, with apparent approval, (as did Leeming JA in TAL at [54]) to the advice of the Privy Council given by Lord Templeman in Hayim v Citibank NA [1987] AC 730 at 748, namely:

    [The] authorities demonstrate that a beneficiary has no cause of action against a third party save in special circumstances which embrace a failure, excusable or inexcusable, by the trustee in the performance of the duty owned by the trustees to the beneficiary to protect the trust estate or to protect the interests of the beneficiary in the trust estate.

    (Emphasis added.)

  4. In Lidden (at 563-564) Finn J explained that the requirement for “special circumstances” should not be limited to claims that a trustee has against the third party for equitable relief, and that such action could also be brought by a beneficiary in respect of claims at common law or under statute. His Honour said:

    …it is not at all apparent to me why, today, we should insist on a multiplicity of suits – as the older equity rule, unmodified, would require – for the purpose of resolving a matter which gives rise to claims for other, as well as equitable, relief: cf Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 22.

    The distinction between claims for equitable and for other relief has not commended itself to United States courts or text writers. Likewise it seems to have been ignored in observations made in Privy Council cases. So, for example, it is said in Scott and Fratcher, The Law of Trusts (4th ed), Vol 4, par 282.1:

    “If the trustee improperly refuses to bring an action against a third person who commits a tort with respect to the trust property, the beneficiaries can maintain a suit in equity against the trustee to compel him to do his duty and to bring the proper action against the third person. In the earlier law this was all that the beneficiaries could do. It was later held, however, that the whole controversy can be settled in a single suit, and in order to avoid multiplicity of suits the beneficiaries were permitted to join the third person as a co-defendant with the trustee, thus avoiding the necessity of two suits, one in equity by the beneficiaries against the trustee and another at law by the trustee against the third person. In such a proceeding the trustee is a necessary party defendant if he can be subjected to the jurisdiction of the court.”

    To illustrate this approach, this time in a contractual setting, the authors refer to observations of Lord Wright in the Privy Council in Vandepitte v Preferred Accident Insurance Corporation of New York [1933] AC 70 at 79:

    “a party to a contract can constitute himself a trustee for a third party of a right under the contract and thus confer such rights enforceable in equity on the third party. The trustee then can take steps to enforce performance to the beneficiary by the other contracting party as in the case of other equitable rights. The action should be in the name of the trustee; if, however, he refuses to sue, the beneficiary can sue, joining the trustee as a defendant.”

    I should add that to like effect in my view are the comments of the Privy Council in Hayim v Citibank NA [1987] AC 730 at 748, though the relief there sought was equitable. See also G G Bogert, G T Bogert and W K Stevens, The Law of Trusts and Trustees (Revised 2nd ed, 1977), par 869 where the subject is considered at length.

    In the absence of any compelling reason in a Judicature Act system to limit the right of a beneficiary to claim equitable relief alone, in light of the approach taken in the authorities I have referred to, and given the undesirability of adhering to an approach which promotes multiplicity of suits, I am prepared to hold that, provided the other – the “exceptional” or “special” circumstances – requirement of the rule is met, it is not necessary in a Judicature Act system that the relief be equitable or equitable alone that is sought by the beneficiary instituting proceedings for a trust.

Posted on

Joint Obligations

A joint promise by two or more persons creates a single obligation upon both or all. The theory of a joint and several promise is that it creates both a joint obligation incumbent upon all and a number of several obligations respectively incumbent upon each one; but the several obligations are non cumulative, so that (as with purely joint obligations) performance by any one will discharge all. The presumption is that a contract made by two or more persons is joint, express words being necessary to make it joint and several: Glanville Williams, Joint Obligations (1949), Butterworths at 24; see too Re Hodgson (1885) 31 Ch D 177 at 188.

The fact that an obligation is joint does not mean that a joint obligor is only partly liable for the amount of the obligation.

A successful plaintiff is entitled to enter judgment for the full amount of its proven claim but is not entitled to double recovery. Payments effect a reduction in the amount of the liability of each defendant.

 

Junker v Hepburn [2010] NSWSC 88 [52]-[54]

Posted on

Actual and Ostensible authority

See the principles in relation to actual and ostensible authority in Junker v Hepburn [2010] NSWSC 88 (Junker) at [39]-[48] (Hammerschlag J)

Agency

39 The authority of an agent may be:

  • actual (either express or implied) where it results from a manifestation of consent that the agent should represent or act for the principal expressly or impliedly made by the principal to himself; or
  • apparent, where it results from such a manifestation made by the principal to third parties: Bowstead and Reynolds on Agency, 17th ed (2001) Sweet & Maxwell at Ch 3, Art 22.

40 The rules concerning actual and apparent authority apply where the principal is a company. They are supplemented by provisions of the Act where companies are concerned. The usual starting point in any consideration of a director’s actual authority is the constitution of the company, which invariably provides for directors’ powers. Express actual authority of a director usually derives from the constitution of the company or from some antecedent act such as a resolution of the board of directors: Northside Developments Pty Ltd v Registrar-General (1990) 170 CLR 146 at 205; Perkins v National Australia Bank Ltd (1999) 30 ACSR 256 at 262.
41 Implied actual authority is the authority which the law regards as having been given to an agent because of the interpretation put by the law on the relationship and dealings of the two parties: Bowstead and Reynolds on Agency, 17th ed (2001) Sweet & Maxwell par 3-003. The Court’s inquiry concerns the intention of the principal in conferring authority on the agent: Gino Evan Dal Pont, Law of Agency, 2nd ed (2008) LexisNexis Butterworths par 8.1.
42 Ordinarily, where a company has more than one director, a single director does not have authority to bind it. A director’s normal power is to bind the company only by joining with other directors in a collective resolution of the board of directors: Northside Developments Pty Ltd v Registrar-General (1990) 170 CLR 146 at 198, 205.
43 An implied grant of actual authority can result from acquiescence in the course of behaviour by persons who have actual authority to delegate. For example, if directors as a board stand by whilst a single director enters into transactions outside his or her authority, the board’s acquiescence in that course of dealing can constitute the grant, by implication, of actual authority to enter into those transactions.
44 In Equiticorp Finance Limited (in liq) v Bank of New Zealand (1993) 32 NSWLR 50 at 134, Clarke JA and Cripps JA said in relation to implied actual authority:

A recent example of the application of the principle in Australia is to be found in Brick and Pipe Industries Ltd v Occidental Life Nominees Pty Ltd [1992] 2 VR 279, where (at 360-361) the Appeal Division of the Supreme Court of Victoria applied Hely-Hutchinson v Brayhead Ltd . In the joint judgment there was a finding of implied actual authority in relation to one Goldberg to manage the business and to hold out a person as secretary who  was in fact not the secretary. The facts and circumstances there relied upon to justify such a finding included the following: Goldberg had actual control over the group of companies and invariably asserted control over each of the companies in the group; Goldberg was known as the alter ego of group companies; Goldberg made decisions for the group companies; there was no evidence that he found it necessary to refer to any board to seek approval for the course of action he proposed; the boards in question had never previously attempted to interfere with his action; Goldberg had obtained board approval of transactions to which he had already committed Brick and Pipe without first seeking authorisation from the board; and that individual directors in evidence confirmed the acquiescence of board members in the activity of Goldberg which culminated in completed transactions for which the board gave no prior approval. One final and, perhaps, decisive element in the scope of the authority the court was prepared to find vested in Goldberg, was that: “… in most, if not all, cases, the transactions committed assets of Brick and Pipe or its subsidiaries as security for borrowings by other Goldberg companies”.

Whether authority is to be implied and, if so, the scope of the authority implied is, in our view, to be found in a close analysis of the evidence before the court which is relied upon to support the implication of actual authority.

45 The authors of Company Directors: Principles of Law and Corporate Governance (2005), LexisNexis Butterworths at par 3.41, citing Freeman & Lockyer v Buckhurst Park Properties (Mangal) Ltd [1964] 2 QB 480 opine that to confer implied actual authority there would have to be not only the acquiescence of the individual board members but evidence of communication by word or conduct of their respective consents to one another and to the agent.
46 Apparent or ostensible authority is conferred where a principal represents that another has authority. The principal will be bound as against a third party by the acts of that other person within the authority which that person appears to have, though the principal had not in fact given that person such authority or had limited the authority by instructions not made known to the third party: Pacific Carriers Ltd v BNP Paribas (2004) 218 CLR 451 at 466; Bowstead and Reynolds on Agency, 17th ed (2001) Sweet & Maxwell par 3-005.
47 Ostensible authority often coincides with, but sometimes exceeds, actual authority. For instance, when a board appoints a managing director, they may expressly limit his authority, but his ostensible authority will include all the usual authority of a managing director. The company is bound by his ostensible authority in his dealings with those who do not know of the limitation: Hely-Hutchinson v Brayhead Ltd [1968] 1 QB 549 at 583 per Lord Denning M.R.
48 An ordinary individual director of a company does not have ostensible authority to bind it. Directors can act only collectively as a board and the function of an individual director is to participate in decisions of the board. In the absence of some representation made by the company, a director has no ostensible authority to bind it: Northside Developments Pty Ltd v Registrar-General (1990) 170 CLR 146 at 205.

Posted on

Time to tart-up one’s Pleadings?

Is this the new normal when pleading claims under the MACA/Civil Liability Act?

From Fairall v Hobbs [2017] NSWCA 82; 347 ALR 151

  1. A fundamental problem in the way the respondent (the plaintiff below) and the primary judge approached the issue of the existence and scope of the duty of care in this case is that each failed to address the requirements of s 5B of the Civil Liability Act which applied to the MACA in this case: s 3B(2) Civil Liability Act.
  2. In Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak (2009) 239 CLR 420; [2009] HCA 48 at [11] it was emphasised by the plurality that it was of the “first importance” to identify the proper starting point, which, both in that appeal and here, was the Civil Liability Act, without which there was a “serious risk that the inquiries about duty, breach and causation will miscarry”.
  3. As Meagher JA said in Garzo v Liverpool / Campbelltown Christian School. [2012] NSWCA 151 at [22]:

“To address the questions and considerations in s 5B, it is necessary to formulate a plaintiff’s claim in a way which takes account of the precautions which it is alleged should have been taken and identifies the risk or risks of harm which the plaintiff alleges eventuated and to which those precautions should have been directed.”

  1. What was required in this case was that the primary judge should clearly identify the risk (or risks) of harm in respect of which the second defendant below was obliged to take precautions. It is against that risk of harm that the court would then have been in a position to determine the second defendant’s knowledge of a specified risk of harm, to assess the probability of that risk occurring, and to evaluate the reasonableness of the second defendant’s response, or lack of response, to that risk: see RTA v Dederer (2007) 234 CLR 330; [2007] HCA 42 at [59]-[61] per Gummow J.
  2. The need to identify the “risk of harm”, and to satisfy each of the requirements in s 5B, has been emphasised in numerous subsequent cases in this Court: Shoalhaven City Council v Pender [2013] NSWCA 210 at [55]-[72] and [83] ff; Reid v Commercial Club (Albury) Ltd [2014] NSWCA 98 at [139]-[160]; and Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) v Miller; Miller v Lithgow City Council(2015) 91 NSWLR 752; [2015] NSWCA 320 at [100]-[129].
  3. The failure by the primary judge to identify the relevant risk of harm means grounds 9-11 of the notice of appeal should succeed. The failure to identify the risk (or risks of harm) left the court below in no position to determine the second appellant’s knowledge of a specified risk of harm, to assess the probability of that risk occurring, and to evaluate the reasonableness of the second appellant’s response, or lack of response, to that risk or those risks. The steps taken or not taken by the second appellant relating to the speed and proximity of the vehicle to the respondent and his horse could not be tested in this case, as they must, against a properly identified risk of harm. It was of no assistance to reason that the second appellant failed in her duty by moving her car two or three metres from the kerb, as that was “insufficient”. It is relevant to observe “insufficient” when compared to what standard? The primary judge’s reasoning, by omitting a properly identified risk of harm against which to test the second appellant’s conduct, begs the question relevant question.
  4. It was also no answer to the failure properly to identify the duty of care and the relevant risk of harm to point to evidence of the second appellant “seeking to exculpate herself” or evidence said to constitute an admission by the second appellant that to drive past a horse safely she should drop her speed to somewhere below the speed limit. At best that evidence could have gone to the question of the second appellant’s knowledge of a specified risk of harm. Having failed to identify any risk of harm, as his Honour was required to do, the primary judge fell into error.

 

Posted on

WSLSA International Humanitarian Law Moot Competition

Honored to be invited by the Western Sydney Law Students’ Association (WSLSA) to judge the final of the WSLSA International Humanitarian Law Moot Competition on Saturday 20 May 2017 at the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The winner will represent Western Sydney University, and the WSLSA, at the Australian Law Students’ Association Conference to be held in Canberra in July 2017.
Capture

Posted on

Contract law series – seminar 12 – Vitiating factors – misrepresentation, misleading and deceptive conduct

Seminar 12 in the Contract Law Series – Vitiating factors – misrepresentation, misleading and deceptive conduct.

This is a presentation to unversity-level students in Contract Law by Dr William Higgs, Barrister-at-law, Elizabeth Street Chambers, Sydney, Australia.

This is teaching material. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the information contained. This presentation is updated from time to time.

Seminar 12 – Vitiating Factors – Misrepresentation, Misleading and Deceptive Conduct