JurisprudencePrecedentPrivy Council (on appeal from New South Wales)

Trimble v Hill

(1879) 5 App Cas 342; [1879] UKPC 7018791 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
The case came from New South Wales and concerned money deposited on a two-person walking match. New South Wales had enacted the English provision that makes wagering contracts void.
Held
The Privy Council treated the English Court of Appeal decision in Diggle v Higgs (1877) as settling the point: the match was a wager.
Principle
Where a colony has enacted the same statute as England, colonial courts should follow the English Court of Appeal's construction of it (here, Diggle v Higgs on wagering). Later relaxed in Robins v National Trust Co [1927] AC 515.
Cite this

Facts

  • The case came from New South Wales and concerned money deposited on a two-person walking match.
  • New South Wales had enacted the English provision that makes wagering contracts void.
  • The question was whether the deposit was a lawful subscription to a prize or a wager.

Held

  • The Privy Council treated the English Court of Appeal decision in Diggle v Higgs (1877) as settling the point: the match was a wager.
  • Where a colony has the same enactment, the colonial courts should govern themselves by the English Court of Appeal's construction of it.

Cite this

Citation

Trimble v Hill (1879) 5 App Cas 342; [1879] UKPC 70

Reported: BAILII [1879] UKPC 70; secondary commentary. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.