|HOME||MY CASES||EQUITY BLOG||PAPERS||DOWNLOADS||LINKS|
You don’t often see an action for "an account" these days but Justice Sifris of the Victorian Supreme Court has recently handed down a decision that outlines the relevant principles. It’s the case of Jane v Bob Jane Corporation Pty Ltd & Anor  VSC 406 (9 August 2013).
A person is liable to an action for an account when they receive money or property they may have to repay to another person. Here are some of the principles emerging from this case:
To my mind, the curious thing about this case was its failure to mention the leading Australian authority on “account stated” being Bank of New South Wales v Brown  HCA 1, 151 CLR 514 at 536 . You have a true “account stated” and an admitted debt when there is a balance left over from mutual debts which are set-off against each other. That is mutual debits and credits, which is more or less what happened in this case.