Law of Contract I (LAW 1210)

Tutorial 3-4pm – Miss Khadijah

Semester 1, 2010/2011

CASE REVIEW on
COLLINS V GODEREY (1831) 1B & AD 950; 109 ER 1040

Plaintiff : Collins
Defendant : Godefroy
Judges : Lord Tenterden CJ
Court : Court of King’s Bench

Assumpsit to recover remuneration for the plaintiff’s loss of time during his attendance
upon subpoena as a witness in an action. At a trial before Lord Tenterden CJ it appeared that
Godefroy brought an action against one Dalton, and caused Collins to be subpoenaed to
attend. Collins, who attended for six days but was not called, demanded of Godefroy six
guineas as his fee for attendance and commenced his action on the following day. Lord
Tenterden was of opinion that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover because in a point of
law, he was bound to give evidence pursuant upon a subpoena.

Issues:
 Whether the plaintiff can maintain an action of compensation for loss of time?
 Whether there is a good consideration to pay fee for the attendance of a subpoena?

Principles:
1) A person who has attended a trial as a witness on subpoena cannot maintain any action
for compensation for loss of time because it is a duty imposed by law on all persons to
attend and give evidence in Courts of Justice.
2) An express promise of remuneration for the performance of such duty should be void as
having been made without consideration.
3) There should be tendered to him merely that reasonable sum for his costs and charges
which with regard to the distance of the place is necessary to be allowed according to
statute but not for the compensation for loss of time.
4) A promise to perform a duty already imposed by law cannot be a good consideration
for reasons of public policy.

MAGNIFICIENT & CO.

‘Adilah binti Sabri (1019536)
Nadra Fatima binti Mannan (1016122)
Law of Contract I (LAW 1210)
Tutorial 3-4pm – Miss Khadijah
Semester 1, 2010/2011

Ratio Decidendi:
The rule is discharged –
The defendant was not bound by law to pay that sum. The offer of the payment six guineas is
not having been accepted which is not avail the plaintiff. A promise to give any remuneration
for loss of time incurred in such attendance is a promise without consideration because it is
duty imposed by law upon party regularly subpoenaed. Even though there certain cases
allowing costs between party and party for the attendance of professional men (medical men
and attorneys) per day but that practice cannot alter the law. Hence, the court held that an
action does not lie for compensation to a witness for loss of time in attendance under
subpoena.

Conclusion:
A person who is under a legal and public duty is not a consideration to pay that performance
of duty imposed by law such as to attend court and give evidence when subpoenaed by the
court as it is required to do so. Therefore, the plaintiff’s attendance in court was insufficient
as a consideration in return for the promise made by the defendant. Plus, he did not anything
over and above his existing public duty.

MAGNIFICIENT & CO.

‘Adilah binti Sabri (1019536)
Nadra Fatima binti Mannan (1016122)