Coulls v Bagot’s Executor and Trustee Co Ltd (1967) 119 CLR 460

Facts: Arthur owned a property, and allowed a Construction Co to quarry on it with royalties to be paid to himself and his wife Doris. Provision was made for payments "going to the living partner". 

Issue: Whether Doris was a party to the contract and could enforce the contract in view of the fact that she offered no consideration on the contract?

Held (Taylor and Owen JJ – majority): The promise of the Construction Co was made to Arthur alone. However, considering the joint promisee situation, where only 1 of 2 joint promisees provides the consideration for the promise, it does not mean that the other promisee cannot benefit from it. At CL however, the action should be brought by both, and it may well fail if brought by one only.

Issue: When suing for specific performance on a promise that is made to two people, do both have to sue? 

Held (Barwick CJ and Windeyer J): Specific performance can be sought by either of the parties.