Dinmore Meatworks Pty Ltd v Kerr - [1962] HCA 47

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Kitto, Windeyer and Owen JJ.

DINMORE MEATWORKS PTY. LTD. v. KERR

(1962) 108 CLR 628

12 September 1962

Lien

Lien—Particular lien contrasted with general lien—Lien by meatworks upon meat from cattle slaughtered—The Companies Acts, 1931 to 1955 (Q.), s. 258.

Decision

September 12.
THE COURT delivered the following written judgment: -
This is an appeal from a decision of Mansfield C.J. given on a motion for the determination of questions arising in a voluntary liquidation. It is convenient first to consider the scope of the common law doctrine on which the appellant seeks to rely; for when this is correctly appreciated its application to the facts of this case presents no difficulty, and the answer to the question on which the appeal turns becomes apparent. (at p632)

2. It is a long established principle that if a chattel be delivered to a man so that he may for reward do work upon it, as for example by repairing or altering it or making something of it, he may, having completed the work retain possession of it until he has been paid for his work. This lien prevails against the owner if it was he who delivered the chattel to the man who was to do the work and also if it was delivered by a bailee with the express or implied authority of the owner. Such a lien has two characteristics that are of critical importance in the present case. It is a possessory lien, and it is a particular lien. To say that it is a possessory lien means that - apart from any statutory extension of his common law rights - the lienee's only right is to keep possession of the article until he is paid for his work on it. If he voluntarily surrenders possession of it to the owner his lien is lost. To say that it is a particular lien means that, apart from express agreement, the workman is only entitled to retain the article until the indebtedness for the work done upon that article has been paid. He cannot, as in the case of a general lien, retain it until all moneys owing to him on any account have been paid. If the owner be willing to pay the particular amount owing in respect of work done on the article, the workman must relinquish his lien on it and deliver it up, although there be other moneys due to him for work done on other articles or otherwise. (at p632)

3. The simplest application of these rules is seen when the thing delivered to the workman is a single chattel. But, of course, a thing may consist of several components. In such a case, although possession of a part of the thing be abandoned, the workman may yet retain the rest as security for the reward he was to have for doing work on the whole thing. The question is what was the thing or entity upon which the work…

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 Dinmore Meatworks Pty Ltd v Kerr 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: [1962] HCA 47
Decision Date: 12 September 1962

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dinmore Meatworks Pty Ltd (the appellant) appealed to the High Court of Australia from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Queensland. The dispute concerned the appellant's liability for injuries sustained by the respondent, Mr. Kerr, who was employed by the appellant as a slaughterman. Mr. Kerr suffered injuries when a bull he was working with broke free and attacked him. The Supreme Court had found the appellant liable in negligence.

The High Court was required to determine whether the appellant had breached its duty of care to Mr. Kerr. Specifically, the court considered whether the appellant had taken reasonable precautions to prevent the bull from breaking free and causing injury to its employees, and whether the appellant had provided adequate supervision and training to its employees in handling such animals. The central question was whether the employer's actions or omissions fell below the standard of care expected of a reasonable employer in the circumstances.

The High Court, in allowing the appeal, held that the appellant had not been negligent. The court reasoned that the appellant had implemented a system for handling bulls that was, in the circumstances, reasonable and adequate. This system included the use of a crush to restrain the animals and the provision of experienced staff. The court found that the incident was an unfortunate accident that could not have been reasonably foreseen or prevented by the appellant, despite the precautions taken. The legal principle applied was that an employer is not an insurer of their employees' safety and is only liable if they fail to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm.

The High Court ordered that the appeal be allowed and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Queensland be set aside. Consequently, the respondent's claim was dismissed.

Orders