Dougan v Ley (1946) 71 CLR 142

Facts: There was a contract between two parties for the transfer of a taxi licence. The defendant (D) was the taxi owner, and had a registration and licence for it. D verbally agreed to sell the taxi and the benefit of the registration and licence to the plaintiff (Pl) for a particular price. Pl paid a deposit and desired to complete the arrangement. D declined, breaching the contract and failing to transfer the licence as agreed. Pl bought another taxi in the meantime. Recognising there was a scarcity of available taxi licences, Pl sought to claim specific performance. D argued damages would be sufficient as a remedy for the breach of contract. 

Issue: Was an order for specific performance appropriate in this case?

Held: Yes. While chattels (movable personal property) are not generally subject to specific performance (as damages are adequate), there are exceptions e.g. a chattel of special or unique value. Here, the licensed taxi fell within this exception and hence, specific performance was appropriate. The Court took into account the fact there were only a limited number of taxi licences available, making them valuable and difficult to obtain. It was not material that Pl bought another taxi in the meantime; it did not disqualify the unique and special factor of the chattel. 

Outcome: D was ordered to take all necessary actions and execute all documents which were needed to enable Pl to make a proper application to the Commissioner for Road Transport and Tramways for the transfer of the registration and licence of the taxi.