Ford v Andrews [1916] HCA 29

OF AUSTRALIA. 317

rtoN J. I am quite of the same opinion. H.C. ov A. ; 1916.

o ~~ uJ. Tagree. Camper

v CAMPBELL.

Appeal dismissed with costs. ¥

B.L. [HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.] pee 4. A . . 5 ' . APPELLANT; AND an ' ss 5 % 2 . REsponpeENT.

_ ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES.

ent — Alderman —Ouster —Disqualification— Person engaged or H.C, or A. 'in contract with council—Director of company which has contract with 1916,

of director—Possibility af future benefit—Local Government =~ Sypvey,

il 27; "the Local Government Act 1906 (N.S.W.) provides that a person ae 3.

for the office of alderman if "(j) he is directly or indirectly by "any partner, engaged or interested (other than as a shareholder O"Ruttn'"

ted ci: i 'istin Isaacs and ed company, association, or partnership consisting of more ,, "sis and,

'of a company the directors had power " to give any director r or other person employed by the company a commission on ay particular business transaction or share in the general

he company, and such commission or share of profits shall be treated : 22

H. C. or A.

1916, —~

Forp v ANDREWS.

HIGH COURT (1916.

as part of the working expenses of the company." A subordinate officer of the company agreed on behalf of the company to sell to the council of a municipality a quantity of bricks.

Held, by Griffith C.J. and Barton and Gavan Duffy JJ. (Isaacs J. dissenting), that an alderman of a municipality who was also a director of the company, but who did not know of the making of the contract, was not, by reason either of his being a director or of his being a creditor of the company in respect of unpaid director's fees, or of the possibility of his receiving a future benefit under the article above referred to, engaged or interested in the contract within the meaning of sec. 70 of the Local Government Act 1906, and was therefore not disqualified from the office of alderman.