Corporate law Brisbane

Understanding the legal relationship of agency

HomePrivate: BlogLegal insightsUnderstanding the legal relationship of agency

by

reviewed by

Malcolm Burrows

The importance of establishing whether a legal relationship of agency exists, and if so, to what extent, can be critical when ascertaining whether a person had authority to enter into an agreement on behalf of another person or entity.  The precise legal nature of the relationship may be important to the parties if either are attempting to enforce their rights under an agreement between them.

What does the agency relationship involve?

An agency relation between two parties is a relationship:

involving authority or capacity in one person (the agent) to create or affect legal relations between another person (the principal) and third parties.

In other words, the agency relationship involves appointing a person or entity (Agent), to act on behalf of another person or entity (Principal) when dealing with third parties.

The agency relationship may arise by:

  • agreement between the Principal and Agent, either by express agreement or implied in a variety of ways;
  • the Principal’s ratification of actions performed by the Agent; and
  • estoppel.

The extent of the Agent’s authority

One of the most important aspects of the agency relationship is the extent of the Agent’s authority.  An Agent must act only within their authority.  Where an Agent acts outside of the scope of their authority, for example, entering into an agreement with a third party on behalf of the Principal which is outside the scope of their authority, the agreement will not be enforceable against the Principal.

There are two (2) different types of authority than an Agent may holds, these are:

  • actual authority; and
  • ostensible authority.

Actual authority

The Agent’s actual authority is that which the Principal has actually granted it.  Actual authority may be express, that is, by way of an agency agreement that states the scope of the Agent’s authority, or implied by circumstance.

Circumstances where an Agent may have the implied authority to act in a certain manner may include where there is:

  • a custom or trade in the relevant industry;
  • a course of past dealing where the Agent has performed such actions on behalf of the Principal; and
  • a need for the implied authority to make a commercial agreement, including the agency agreement itself, effective.

Ostensible authority

Ostensible authority is based on the equitable principle of estoppel.  The Agent’s ostensible authority is that which third parties would understand the Agent to be authorised to do on behalf of the Principal, based on the actions of the Principal.  In other words, if the Principal by their words or conduct (or lack thereof) “holds out” that the Agent (or alleged Agent) is authorised to perform certain acts, these acts will be within the ostensible authority of the Agent.

Rights and obligations of the Principal

The Principal will be liable for the actions of the Agent that are carried out in accordance with their authority.  The Principal is also subject to the obligations contained in the agency agreement.  These will by their nature vary between circumstances, but common obligations of Principals include:

  • remuneration of the Agent for performance of their duties; and
  • indemnification of the Agent against.

Rights and obligations of the Agent

The relationship between an Agent and their Principal is, much like that between a solicitor and their client, a fiduciary relationship.  In the agency relationship, the Agent owes a fiduciary duty to the Principal, which compels the Agent to act only in the best interests of the Principal.

The fiduciary duty prevents the Agent from acting in a manner that:

  • conflicts with the interests of the Principal; and
  • causes the Agent to gain an undisclosed, personal benefit by virtue of their position as Agent.

Outside of the fiduciary duty an Agent owes their Principal, an Agent also has other duties, including by not limited to:

  • complying with the terms of the agency agreement;
  • acting only within the scope of their authority; and
  • acting personally, that is, they must not subcontract their duties to another party.

Liability for actions of the Agent

The appointment of an Agent is a serious decision that carries great risk for the Principal.  The major source of risk arises due to the liability for actions committed by the Agent that are within the scope of their authority.

It is discussed above how the Agent can create legal obligations between the Principal and third parties that are enforceable by such third parties against the Agent.  For this reason, it is important that the authority of Agents is clearly defined, and strictly regulated, so as to avoid any liability for actions of the Agent that are outside that which was contemplated initially.

Liability for the actions on the agent in tort

The Principles liability for the actions of their Agent is not limited to commercial dealings and it extends to torts committed by the Agent against third parties when the Agent is acting within the scope of their authority. For example, where an Agent who has the authority to negotiate on behalf the Principal defames a third party in the furtherance of negotiations, the Principal may be liable as a party should the third party commence proceedings.

Links and further references

Cases

Pirie Street Stage 1 P/L v Trotman & Anor And Stewart & Ors [2015] SADC 123

Price v Southern Cross Television (TNT9) Pty Ltd [2014] TASSC 70

Sweeney v Boylan Nominees Pty Ltd [2006] HCA 19

International Harvester Company of Australia Pty Ltd v Carrigan’s Hazeldene Pastoral Co [1958] HCA 16

Further information about agency relationship

If you require further information about the agency relationship or a dispute based on this relationship, contact us for a confidential and obligation-free discussion:


Related insights about the legal relationship of agency

  • WIJOAV v Goldstone – shareholder oppression in a private equity context

    WIJOAV v Goldstone – shareholder oppression in a private equity context

    The recent case of WIJOAV Services Pty Ltd v Goldstone Private Equity Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 622 (WIJOAV v Goldstone) involved a claim of shareholder oppression under section 232 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act).  The case established that a shareholder in a private equity fund may be oppressed by a co-investor where…

    Read more …

  • Mere puffery vs misleading and deceptive conduct – where is the line?

    Mere puffery vs misleading and deceptive conduct – where is the line?

    In the case of Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 54 (ACCC v TPG), the High Court of Australia (High Court) drew a distinction between mere puffery and representations with the intention of marketing.  This article explores the decision in ACCC v TPG and the distinction between puffery and…

    Read more …

  • Federal Court dismisses continuous disclosure claim

    Federal Court dismisses continuous disclosure claim

    The Federal Court recently dismissed Australia Securities and Investment Commission’s (ASIC) claim in Australian Securities and Investment Commission v Nuix Limited [2026] FCA 490 (ASIC v Nuix) that Nuix Limited breached its obligations under section 674 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act).  Nuix Limited (Nuix) successfully contested ASIC’s allegation that it had breached…

    Read more …

  • Individual Flexibility Arrangements: an overview

    Individual Flexibility Arrangements: an overview

    Modern awards and enterprise agreements set out the minimum terms and conditions of employment for most Australian workers performing different roles.  The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) provides a mechanism by which an employer and an individual employee may, by agreement, adjust the operation of certain terms in their Award to better suit theircircumstances. …

    Read more …

  • Coercive control and shareholder oppression

    Coercive control and shareholder oppression

    The Criminal Law (Coercive Control and Affirmative Consent) and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 (Qld) came into effect on 18 March 2024, by adding chapter 29A to the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) (Criminal Code).  This chapter establishes a separate offence of “coercive control’, which stems from domestic violence offences and involves the use of…

    Read more …

  • Overview of the Unfair Trading Practices Bill 2026

    Overview of the Unfair Trading Practices Bill 2026

    On 1 April 2026, the Australian Government introduced the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026 (Cth) (Bill) to amend the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA) and Australian Consumer Law (ACL).[1]  If passed, the reform will take effect on 1 July 2027.  The Bill’s amendments aim to protect consumers from manipulative…

    Read more …

  • Does your start-up meet the ESIC tax-offset criteria?

    Does your start-up meet the ESIC tax-offset criteria?

    Federal government introduced the Tax Laws Amendment (Tax Incentives for Innovation) Act 2016 (Cth) to provide tax incentives for investors in an eligible early stage innovation company (ESIC), including 20% up-front non-refundable tax offset and capital gains tax (CGT) exemption for all types of investors meeting criteria.

    Read more …

  • White-Anting: An employer’s lawful termination guide

    White-Anting: An employer’s lawful termination guide

    Employees who use White Anting tactics to deliberately undermine management or disrupt workplace harmony may be summarily dismissed, provided the relevant legal conditions are met and a proper process is followed.  Following our 28 April 2026 article “White Anting: serious misconduct?“, this article provides practical “how to” steps for employers to lawfully dismiss employees who…

    Read more …

  • White Anting: serious misconduct?

    White Anting: serious misconduct?

    White Anting is an Australian term meaning to sabotage, undermine, or destroy an organisation, project, or person from within.  White Anting in the workplace often involves the quiet, insidious undermining of a colleague or superior through gossip, withholding information, exclusion, or spreading doubt.  White Anting  has been recognised by psychologists as a psychosocial hazard and…

    Read more …


Posted

in

Send this to a friend