YONGE V TOYNBEE [1909] 1 KB 215
MENTAL CAPACITY
FACTS:-
The Defendant retained solicitors to act for him in a defence to an action which he expected to be brought against him by the Claimant. This was in August 1908 but in October 1908 he was certified as being a person of unsound mind. The solicitors knew that the Defendant had suffered from a nervous breakdown, but it was not until April 1909 that they became aware that he was of unsound mind.
The action against the Defendant was brought in October 1908 and his solicitors duly defended the case. That action was discontinued but a second action was commenced against him in December 1908. Again the solicitors acted for the Defendant and entered a defence on his behalf in February 1909. In the same month, an order was made appointing the wife as receiver of the Defendant’s estate. When eventually the solicitors became aware of his unsoundness of mind, they notified the Claimant’s solicitors, who made an application to strike out all proceedings in the action and that the solicitors should personally pay the Claimant’s costs of the action.
HELD:-
Buckley LJ considered previous caselaw on the law of agency. He could see no difference in principle between the case where the agent never had authority and the case where the agent originally had authority, but that authority has ceased without his knowledge or means of knowledge. In Buckley LJ’s opinion, the agent was liable on an implied contract that he had authority, whether there was fraud or not. The question was not as to his honesty or bona fides. Therefore the liability of the person who professes to act as agent arose:-
In this case the solicitors originally had authority to act for Mr Toynbee, but that authority ceased by reason of his unsoundness of mind, and subsequently they continued to act for him. During all this time, they were putting the Claimant to costs, and those costs were incurred upon the faith of their representation that they had authority to act for the Defendant. Therefore the Claimant was entitled to those costs as against the solicitors for the Defendant.
Swinfen Eady J agreed. He said that it was in his opinion, essential to the proper conduct of legal business that a solicitor should be held to warrant the authority which he claimed as representing the client.
Vaughan Williams LJ also agreed.
MENTAL CAPACITY
FACTS:-
The Defendant retained solicitors to act for him in a defence to an action which he expected to be brought against him by the Claimant. This was in August 1908 but in October 1908 he was certified as being a person of unsound mind. The solicitors knew that the Defendant had suffered from a nervous breakdown, but it was not until April 1909 that they became aware that he was of unsound mind.
The action against the Defendant was brought in October 1908 and his solicitors duly defended the case. That action was discontinued but a second action was commenced against him in December 1908. Again the solicitors acted for the Defendant and entered a defence on his behalf in February 1909. In the same month, an order was made appointing the wife as receiver of the Defendant’s estate. When eventually the solicitors became aware of his unsoundness of mind, they notified the Claimant’s solicitors, who made an application to strike out all proceedings in the action and that the solicitors should personally pay the Claimant’s costs of the action.
HELD:-
Buckley LJ considered previous caselaw on the law of agency. He could see no difference in principle between the case where the agent never had authority and the case where the agent originally had authority, but that authority has ceased without his knowledge or means of knowledge. In Buckley LJ’s opinion, the agent was liable on an implied contract that he had authority, whether there was fraud or not. The question was not as to his honesty or bona fides. Therefore the liability of the person who professes to act as agent arose:-
- if he had been fraudulent
- if he had without fraud untruly represented that he had authority when he did not.
- where he innocently misrepresented that he had authority where the fact is that 1) he never had authority 2) his original authority ceased by reason of facts of which he had no knowledge or means of knowledge
In this case the solicitors originally had authority to act for Mr Toynbee, but that authority ceased by reason of his unsoundness of mind, and subsequently they continued to act for him. During all this time, they were putting the Claimant to costs, and those costs were incurred upon the faith of their representation that they had authority to act for the Defendant. Therefore the Claimant was entitled to those costs as against the solicitors for the Defendant.
Swinfen Eady J agreed. He said that it was in his opinion, essential to the proper conduct of legal business that a solicitor should be held to warrant the authority which he claimed as representing the client.
Vaughan Williams LJ also agreed.