The Gazette 1987

GAZETTE

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1987

(7) Interest An agent is obliged to pay in- terest in respect of money receiv- ed on behalf of the principal. 111 An agent is under a duty to pay interest where there has been some default on his or her behalf. 112 Thus an agent is obliged to pay interest on all sums in respect of fraud 113 as well as bribes 114 and secret profits 115 received. (Concluded) FOOTNOTES 57. Sheridan v Higgins [19711 IR 291; and KeayvFenwick (1876) 1 C.P.D. 745. Cf. Dyas v Stafford (1881) 7 LR Ir 590. 58. De Bussche v Alt (1878) 8 Ch.D. 286, per Theisiger L. J. at pp.310-11. 59. Murdoch, ibid. pp.55-56. 60. Betteley v Reed (1843) 4 QB 511; Sheridan v New Quay Co. (1858) 4 CBNS 618. 61. Dixon v Hamond (1819) 2 B & Aid 310; Lyell v Kennedy (1889) 14 App.Cas. 437. Cf. Williams v Pott (1871) LR 12 Eq. 149. 62. Biddle v Bond (1856) 6 B & S 225. 63. B/austein v Maltz, Mitchell & Co. [19371 2 KB 142, per Scott LJ at p. 156. 64. Op.cit., fn. 1, at p. 151. 65. Blaustein v Maltz, Mitchell & Co. [1937] 2 KB 142 per Slesser LJ at 151-4.) Closely related to an agent's duty to keep accounts is the duty of an agent to keep the principal's property separate from his or her own. This du- ty depends on the agency agreement itself: cf. Henry v Hammond ; [19131 2 KB 515. 66. Gray v Haig (1855) 20 Beav 219; Dadsweil v Jacobs (1887) 34 ChD 278. If the agent does not keep ac- counts then every presumption consis- tent with the facts weighs against the agent and in favour of the principal: see Gory v Haig (1855) 20 Beav. 219. 67. Bousfield v Wilson (1846) 16 LJ Ex 44; Booth v Hodgson (1795) 6 Term Rep 405.)" (p. 152 Cf. Qe Mattos v Ben- jamin (1894) 63 LJQB 248; Harry Parker Ltd. v Mason [1940] 2 KB 590; and Murray v Mann (1848) 2 Exch 528. An agent is not obliged to pro- duce accounts to any person with whom he or she has a reasonable dispute. Dadsweil v Jacobs (1887) 34 ChD 278. 68. Hippisley v Knee [1905] 1 KB 1 at 9 per Kennedy J. 69. p. 160. Cf. Hippisley v Knee, ibid. 70. p. 157. 71. Boardman v Phipps [1965] 1 All ER 849 at 856 Cf. Reading v AG [1951] AC 507; Swain v Law Society 11982] 2 All ER 827. 72. De Bussche v Alt (1878) 8 ChD 286. Cf. Boardman v Phibbs [1967] 2 AC 46 (HL) and [1965] 1 All ER 849 at 856 per Lord Denning.

75. Boston Deep Sea Fishing and ice Co. c Anse/i (1888) 39 Ch.D. 339; An- drews v Ramsey [ 1903) 2 KB 635. 76. It is possible to discuss this duty in the context if secret profits, see supra the text accompanying footnotes 68-75, but it is as well to discuss it separate- ly for the purposes of exposition. 77. Boston Deep Sea Fishing & Ice Co. v Ansel/ ibid, fn.75; Swa/e v Ipswich Tannery Ltd. ibid, fn.75. 78. The criminal law relating to bribery need not concern us in the present context. 79. Industries & General Mortgage Co. Lewis [1914] 2 All E.R. 573, per Slade J., at 575; Cf. Taylor v Walker (1958) 1 Lloyd's Rep. 490; Panama etc. Telegraph Co. v India Rubber Etc., TelegraphWorks (1875) LR 10 Ch App 51 5, at 526. An agent is not liable to recover an unpaid bribe from a third party: Harrington v Victoria Graving Docks (1878) 3 QBD 549; Meadow Schama & Co. v C. Mitchell & Co. Ltd. (1973) 228 E.G. 1151. 80. Boston Deep Sea Fishing & ice Co. v Anseii, ibid., fn.75; Swale v Ipswich Tannery Ltd., ibid, fn.75. 81. ibid, fn.75. 82. Rhodes v Macalister (1923) 29 Com. Cas. 19; Shipway v Broadwood (1899) 1 QB 369. 83. Andrews v Ramsay [19031 2 KB 635; Fulwood v Hurley [1928] 1 KB 325. 84. Cf. text accompanying fn.2, supra. 85. ibid., fn.83. 86. Cf. Boston Deep Sea Fishing & Ice Co. v Ansel/, ibid., fn.75; E. Green & Son Ltd. v Tughan& Co. (1913) 30 TLR 64; Fulwood v Hurley, ibid., fn.83. 87. Mahesan v Malaysian Goivernment Of- ficers' Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. [1979] AC 374; Hovenden & Sons v Mi/ihoff (1900) 83 Lt 41. 88. Re Morvah Consols Tin Mining Co., McKay's Case (1875) 2 Ch.D. 1. 89. G. W. insurance Co. v Cuniiffe (1874) 9 Ch.App. 525; Re Has/am (1902) 1 Ch. 765; Baring v Stanton (1876) 3 Ch.D. 502; Norreys v Hodgson (1897) 13 TLR 421; Queen of Spain v Parr (1869) 39 LJ Ch 73; Green v Tughan (1913) 30 TLR 64. Cf. Fulwood v Hurley (1928) 1 KB 498. 90. Shipway v Broadwood [18991 1 QB 369. 91. This can be of critical importance but it is a point which is not beyond dispute. 92. Cf. Jones (1970) 86 LQR 463; Chitty on Contracts, (op.cit., fn. 1) vol. //, paras. 2301-4. 93. Where the agent merely introduces the business there may also be no liability in contract: cf. Cherry Ltd. v Allied in- surance Brokers Ltd. [19781 1 Lloyd's Rep. 274. 94. Cf. Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd. v Mardon [1976] QB 801. 95. Smityv Price (1862) 2 F & F 748; Maydew v Forrester (1814) 5 Taunt 615; Neiison v James (1882) 9 QBD 546; Cf. Lewcock v Bromley (1920) 127 LT 116; Keppel v Wheeler [1927] 1 KB 577. Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. v Quah BengKee [1924] AC 177. 96. Cf. Mainwaring v Brandon (1818) 2

97. Hadley v Baxendaie (1854) 9 Exch. 341; Boyd v Fitt (1864) 11 LT 280; Czarnikow v Koufos, The Heron li 11969] 1 AC 350; Jarvix v Swan's Tours Ltd. [1973] 1 QB 223; Jackson v Horizon Holidays Ltd. [1975] 1 WLR 1468; Woodar Investments Develop- ment Ltd. v Wimpey Construction (UK) Ltd. [1980] 1 WLR 277; Cf. Cia. Finan- ciera "Soieada" v Hamoor Tanker Corpn. inc. (The Borag) [1981] 1 WLR 274 for the position in tort. 98. "See Osman v J. Ralph Moss Ltd. [19701 1 Lloyd's Rep. 313, CA, where insurance brokers had grossly misled the principal as to the financial standing of an insurance company, with the result that the principal became unin- sured and was convicted for driving while uninsured. Cf. R. Leslie Ltd. v Reliable Advertising and Addressing Agency Ltd. [1915] 1 KB 652; see also Askey v Go/den Wine Co. Ltd. [19481 2 All ER 35, . . ." 99. Haisbury's Laws of England, 4th ed., para. 784. 100. E.g. Boston Deep Sea Fishing and ice Co. vAnselH 1888) 39 Ch.D. 339 at 357, per Cotton LJ and at p.364 per Bowen LJ. Cf Andrews v Ramsay [1903] 2 KB 635. 101. Cf. Harsant v Blaine, MacDonald & Co. (1887) 56 LJQB 511. 102. Great Western insurance Co. of New York v Cuniiffe (1874) 9 Ch App 525 at 541. Cf. Seeger v Copydex Ltd. (No.2) [1969] 1 WLR 809; English v Dedham Vale PropertiesLtd. (1971 1 WLR 93. 103. Boston Deep Sea Fishing and ice Co. v Ansell (1888) 39 Ch.D. 339 at p. 364 per Bowen LJ; James & Co. Scheepvaart en HandeimijBVv Chine- crest Ltd. [1979] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 126. 104. Re Parker (1882) 21 ChD 403, CA. Generally, the principal is not entitled to recover from the agent any money already paid over for an illegal pur- pose: cf. Re Parker, ibid. 105. Dale v Soilet (1767) 4 Burr. 2133. 106. Wilkinson v North Suburban Proper- ties Ltd. (1959) 174 EG 213, CA. Cf. Struthers v Smith 1913 2 SLT 1 55. 107. Cf. Parkinson v Hanbury (1867) LR 2 HL 1. 108. E.G. Kenney v Hall, Pain & Foster (1976) 239 EG 355; LB Martin Con- struction Ltd. v Gagiiardi (1977) ILR 1-1061. 109. Cf. Bronester Ltd. v Priddie [1961] 1 WLR 1294; Rivoii Hats Ltd. v Gooch [1953] 1 WLR 1190; Clayton Newbury Ltd. v Findlay [1953] 1 WLR 1194n. 110. Normally an agent who acquires infor- maion in the course of an agency must use that information solely for the pur- poses of that agency: see Peter Pan Manufacturing Corp. v Corsets SilhouetteLtd. [1963] 3 All ER 402. 111. Webster v British Empire Mutual Life Assurance Co. (1880) 15 ChD 169, CA. Cf. /foyers v Boehm (1799) 2 Esp. 702; Burdick v Garrick (1870) 5 Ch. App. 233; Lord Chjedworth v Ed- wards (1802) 8 Ves. 46. 113. Earl of Hardwicke v Vernon (1808) 14 Ves. 504. 114. Boston Deep Sea Fishing and ice Co. v Ansell, ibid., at footnote 75. 11 5. Nantyglo and Biaina ironworks Co. v Grave (1878) 12 ChD 738.

Moore CP 125; Re United Service Co., Johnston's Oaim (1871) 6 Ch App 212.

73. (1867) 20 LT 218. 74. (1891) 7 TLR 698

2 3