Agripower Barraba Pty Limited v Blomfield - [2013] NSWSC 1598

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Agripower Barraba Pty Limited v Blomfield [2013] NSWSC 1598
Hearing dates: 25 and 27 September 2013
Decision date: 05 November 2013
Jurisdiction: Equity Division
Before: Black J
Decision:
Judgment that disputed items are fixtures and the proceedings should be dismissed. Parties to bring in draft short minutes of order to give effect to judgment.

Catchwords: PROPERTY - fixtures to land - intention of parties - degree of annexation - where uncertainty over who owned disputed items prior to transfer of title - where uncertainty over whether party held rights of ownership or rights of a secured creditor over the disputed items - where certain items partly welded in place and structures built around them which would have to be demolished, in part, to remove them - where certain items are part of an integrated processing and bagging facility - whether removal would destroy the items - whether the cost of removal would exceed the value of the items - whether removal would damage the property - whether terms of a lease assists with determining the intention of parties.
Legislation Cited: - Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW)
- Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) ss 48(4)(a), 48(4)(b), 48(4)(d)
- Sale of Goods Act 1923 (NSW) s 27
- Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 14.26(1)
Cases Cited: - Agripower Australia Ltd v J & D Rigging Pty Ltd [2013] QSC 164
- Attorney-General (Cth) v RT Company Pty Ltd (1957) 97 CLR 146
- Australian Provincial Assurance Co Ltd v Coroneo (1938) 38 SR (NSW) 700
- Commissioner of State Revenue (Vic) v Snowy Hydro Ltd [2012] VSCA 145
- Commissioner of Stamps (WA) v L Whiteman Ltd [1940] HCA 30; (1940) 64 CLR 407
- Commissioner of State Revenue v Uniqema Pty Ltd [2004] VSCA 82; (2004) 9 VR 523
- Lees & Leech Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (1997) 73 FCR 136
- Loiero (aka Lero) v Adel Sportswear Pty Ltd & Ors [2010] NSWSC 1133; (2010) 15 BPR 29,689
- May v Ceedive Pty Ltd [2006] NSWCA 369; (2006) 13 BPR 24,147
- Metal Manufacturers Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [1999] FCA 1712
- National Australia Bank Ltd v Blacker [2000] FCA 1458; (2000) 104 FCR 288
- National Dairies WA Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue [2001] WASCA 112; (2001) 24 WAR 70
- Pegasus Gold Australia Ltd v Metso Minerals (Australia) Limited [2003] NTCA 03
- Re Cancer Care [2013] NSWSC 37
- Re Starline Furniture Pty Ltd (in liq) (1982) 6 ACLR 312
- Reynolds v Ashby & Son [1904] AC 466
- TEC Desert Pty Limited v Commissioner of State Revenue (WA) [2010] HCA 49; (2010) 241 CLR 576
Texts Cited: Peter Butt, Land Law, 6th ed, 2010
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Agripower Barraba Pty Limited (Plaintiff)
Dean Robert Innes Blomfield (First Defendant)
Penelope Mary Blomfield (Second Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
P.P. O'Loughlin/J.C. Conde (Plaintiff)
T.G.R. Parker/M. Castle…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Agripower Barraba Pty Limited v Blomfield and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] NSWSC 1598
Decision Date: 05 November 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Agripower Barraba Pty Limited, the plaintiff, brought an action against Blomfield, the defendant, in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, concerning items of property situated on a property known as "The Big Bag", which was owned by the plaintiff. The plaintiff sought a declaration that certain items on the property were fixtures and thus belonged to it. The defendant argued that the items were either chattels or, if fixtures, that they belonged to him. The central legal issue was whether the items in question were fixtures and, if so, which party was entitled to them. The court had to consider the degree of annexation of the items to the land, the intention of the parties, and whether the items were part of an integrated processing facility.

The court examined the evidence and found that the items were substantially affixed to the land and integral to the operation of the processing and bagging facility. The court considered that the cost of removal would likely exceed the value of the items and that removal would cause significant damage to the property. The court also considered the terms of the lease, which indicated that the parties intended for the items to be fixtures. The court concluded that the items were fixtures and that they belonged to the plaintiff, as the owner of the land. The court rejected the defendant's argument that he held the items as a secured creditor.

The court found that the plaintiff was entitled to a declaration that the items in question were fixtures and belonged to it. The court did not award any costs to either party, as it considered that the matter had been resolved amicably and that neither party had acted unreasonably. The court's decision provides guidance on the factors to be considered when determining whether an item is a fixture and the extent to which the intention of the parties and the degree of annexation are relevant.

Orders