Agripower Barraba Pty Ltd v Blomfield

Case [2015] NSWCA 30



Court of Appeal
Supreme Court

New South Wales

Case Name: 

Agripower Barraba Pty Ltd v Blomfield

Medium Neutral Citation: 

[2015] NSWCA 30

Hearing Date(s): 

20 October 2014

Decision Date: 

27 February 2015

Before: 

Bathurst CJ at [1]; 
Beazley P at [2];
Sackville AJA at [3]

Decision: 

1. Appeal allowed in part.

2. Set aside the orders made by Black J on 13 November 2013.

3. In lieu thereof, make the following order:

Declare that the appellant is the owner of the Items in the schedule to these orders.

4. Remit the proceedings to the primary Judge to determine outstanding issues, including the appropriate order for access to the respondents’ property, damages and the costs of the trial.

5. Subject to Order 6, there be no order as to the costs of the appeal.

6. A party wishing to apply for a different order as to the costs of the appeal have liberty to file written submissions within seven days, the opposing party having a further seven days to respond in writing.

7. The parties have liberty to file agreed short minutes of order within fourteen days if they are able to reach agreement on outstanding issues.


Schedule
As in the Schedule to this judgment.


[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court’s computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Catchwords: 

PROPERTY- fixtures to land- where certain items are part of an integrated processing facility- whether items are chattels or fixtures- intention of parties- whether terms of a lease assists with determining the intention of parties - degree of annexation- dispute as to ownership of chattels-  difficulty in removing items- potential damage during removal- the cost of removal

Legislation Cited: 

Mining Act 1973 (NSW)
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW)

Workmen’s Liens Act (NT)

Building and Construction Industry Payment Act 2004 (Qld)

Cases Cited: 

Agripower Australia Ltd v J & D Rigging Pty Ltd [2013] QSC 164
Agripower Barraba Pty Ltd v Blomfield [2013] NSWSC 1598
Akins v National Australia Bank (1994) 34 NSWLR 155
Attorney-General (Cth) v RT Co Pty Ltd (No 2) (1957) 97 CLR 146
Australian Provincial Assurance Co Ltd v Coroneo (1938) 38 SR (NSW) 700
Branir Pty Ltd v Owston Nominees (No 2) Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1833; 117 FCR 424
Commissioner of Stamps (WA) v L Whiteman Ltd [1940] HCA 30; 64 CLR 407
D’Arcy v Burelli Investments Pty Ltd (1987) 8 NSWLR 317
Elwes v Maw (1802) 3 East 38; 102 ER 510
Leigh v Taylor [1902] AC 157
National Australia Bank Ltd v Blacker [2000] FCA 1458; 104 FCR 288
NH Dunn Pty Ltd v LM Ericsson Pty Ltd (1979) 2 BPR 9241
Palumberi v Palumberi…

Continue reading Agripower Barraba Pty Ltd v Blomfield

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Agripower Barraba Pty Ltd v Blomfield [2015] NSWCA 30
Case
[2015] NSWCA 30
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute in *Agripower Barraba Pty Ltd v Blomfield* concerned the ownership of certain items installed at a processing facility. Agripower Barraba Pty Ltd (the appellant) claimed ownership of these items, while the Blomfields (the respondents) asserted they were chattels belonging to them. The matter came before the New South Wales Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the items in question were fixtures, and therefore part of the land owned by the respondents, or chattels, which would remain the property of the appellant. This involved considering the intention of the parties at the time of installation, the degree of annexation of the items to the land, the difficulty and potential damage associated with their removal, and the cost of such removal. The terms of the lease agreement between the parties were also relevant to assessing the parties' intentions.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that while the items were integrated into a processing facility and were difficult to remove, the intention of the parties, as evidenced by the lease and the nature of the installation, indicated they were intended to remain chattels. The Court applied the principles governing the distinction between fixtures and chattels, focusing on the degree of annexation and the object of annexation. The Court found that the primary judge had erred in concluding the items were fixtures.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the primary judge's orders. It declared that the appellant was the owner of the items in question and remitted the proceedings to the primary judge to determine outstanding issues, including access, damages, and costs. The costs of the appeal were generally to be borne by the parties, with liberty to apply for a different order.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed in part.

2. Set aside the orders made by Black J on 13 November 2013.

3. In lieu thereof, make the following order:

Declare that the appellant is the owner of the Items in the schedule to these orders.

4. Remit the proceedings to the primary Judge to determine outstanding issues, including the appropriate order for access to the respondents’ property, damages and the costs of the trial.

5. Subject to Order 6, there be no order as to the costs of the appeal.

6. A party wishing to apply for a different order as to the costs of the appeal have liberty to file written submissions within seven days, the opposing party having a further seven days to respond in writing.

7. The parties have liberty to file agreed short minutes of order within fourteen days if they are able to reach agreement on outstanding issues.

Schedule

As in the Schedule to this judgment.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court’s computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.