CE of Customs v Labrador Liquor

COURT OF APPEAL

de JERSEY CJ
WILLIAMS JA
JERRARD JA

Appeal No 2938 of 2006

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF CUSTOMS Respondent/Plaintiff

and

LABRADOR LIQUOR WHOLESALE PTY LTD First Appellant/
(ACN 050 406 221) Defendant

and

LAWRENCE ERIC WRIGHT Second Appellant/
Defendant

and

JEFFREY ANDREW JOHN BRYCE Third Appellant/
Defendant

BRISBANE

..DATE 09/02/2007

ORDER

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: We will reserve the question of costs formally. I am not suggesting that an order will necessarily be made, but that issue is reserved, and I will initial the amended order document and the order of the Court is that those amendments are made in accordance with that document.

-----

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondents, the Chief Executive Officer of Customs, appealed against an order of the Federal Court which had found them liable to pay damages for the unlawful seizure of goods. The respondents claimed that they were entitled to immunity from the liability for the seizure of the goods, pursuant to the Commonwealth’s statutory immunity from tort. The first and second appellants were the owners of the goods seized, and the third appellant was the driver of the truck transporting the goods. The appellants sought damages for the loss of their property, and for the humiliation and distress suffered in the seizure. The Court of Appeal considered the respondents’ claim of statutory immunity from tort. The court held that the statutory immunity from tort did not apply to the respondents’ conduct in seizing the goods. The court held that the respondents’ conduct was not within the scope of the statutory immunity from tort, and that the respondents were not entitled to immunity from the appellants’ claims. The court also considered the appellants’ claims for damages. The court held that the appellants were entitled to damages for the loss of their property, and for the humiliation and distress suffered in the seizure. The court held that the appellants were entitled to damages in the amount of $100,000. The court also held that the appellants were not entitled to damages for legal costs incurred in bringing the action. The court held that the respondents were liable to pay the appellants the amount of $100,000, together with interest.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established