Peden v Little

20 CLR 555

LITTLE AND OTHERS

RESPONDENTS. DEFENDANTS,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF Book Assignment- - Portion of debt to become due-Special leave to appeal to

High Court-Book Debts Act 1896 (Vict.) (No. 1424), secs. 2, 3.

Special leave to appeal from the Supreme Court of Victoria refused.

APPLICATION for special leave to appeal.

One John Diwell had entered into a contract with John Little and several other persons, who were the committee of a church, for carrying out certain repairs to the church for a sum of £239

20 CLR 556

17s. 10d. Diwell arranged with William John Peden to do a

certain portion of the work and to advance certain moneys and material for the work; and, to secure Peden, gave him on 20th LITTLE.

July 1914 a written order addressed to the committee requesting them to pay to Peden the sum of £60 out of the balance of moneys due to Diwell on completion of the contract. The contract having been completed and the £60 not having been paid, Peden brought an action in the County Court at Casterton to recover that sum from the members of the committee as being due under the order or assignment of 20th July 1914. The plaintiff was nonsuited on the ground that the assignment relied upon was void for non-registration under the Book Debts Act 1896. He then appealed to the Supreme Court but the appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff now applied for special leave to appeal to the High Court from that decision.

H. Walker for the appellant. A single sum of money which will become due in the future under a contract of this kind is not a "book debt" within the definition in sec. 2 of the Book Debts Act 1896. That question was left open in Shackell v. Howe, Thornton &Palmer 1. Sec. 3 of that Act does not apply to an assignment of part of a single debt.

PER CURIAM. This is not a case for special leave. The appli- cation is refused.

Special leave to appeal refused. Solicitors, for the appellant, Weigall &Crowther for Frank W. Abbott, Casterton.

18 C.L.R. 170

CaseChat Overview and Summary

William John Peden sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria, which had dismissed his appeal from the County Court. Peden had sued John Little and other members of a church committee to recover £60, based on a written order given to him by a contractor, John Diwell. Diwell had contracted to perform repairs on the church for a total sum, and had arranged with Peden to undertake a portion of the work and advance moneys and materials. To secure Peden, Diwell had provided the committee with an order to pay Peden £60 from the balance due to Diwell upon completion of the contract.

The central legal issue before the courts was whether the written order constituted an assignment of a "book debt" within the meaning of the *Book Debts Act 1896* (Vic.). If it was a book debt, the further issue arose as to whether the Act required registration for such an assignment to be valid, and whether the Act applied to an assignment of a portion of a single debt. The County Court had found the assignment void for non-registration, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court.

The applicant argued that a single sum of money to become due in the future under a contract was not a "book debt" as defined by the Act, and that section 3 of the Act did not apply to the assignment of part of a single debt. However, the High Court, in refusing special leave to appeal, did not provide detailed reasons for its decision. The Court simply stated that it was not a case for special leave.

Special leave to appeal was refused.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established