JUDGMENT

Thomson CJ (delivering oral judgment):

For myself I will start my consideration of this appeal by quoting the following decision from an old edition of Bowstead on Agency*:

Where injury or loss is caused to a third person the wrongful act.......of an agent who is acting within the scope of his authority, the principal is liable jointly and severally with the agent.

I accept that as a correct, statement of the law.

In this case the trial Judge says he accepts the evidence of the plaintiff that he had hired the car from the second defendant (the present appellant) for the purpose of a trip to Singapore and that the first defendant was the driver appointed by the second defendant to drive the plaintiff to Singapore. The plaintiff was to pay $30 a day for the use of the car and this was to include the services of the driver.

If that evidence be accepted, and on all the authorities I can see no reason which would justify us in interfering with the trial Judge's decision that it should be accepted, then in the light of the statement of the law as I have stated it the second defendant was clearly liable for the damage caused by the first defendant's wrongful act in the course of the journey to Singapore. In the circumstances I would dismiss the appeal with costs and I would order payment out of the deposit to the respondent towards his taxed costs.

Hill and Good JJA concurred.

Appeal dismissed.

Foot note: * 1944 (10th Edn.) p. 206.