Fearnley v Finlay

Case [2014] QCA 155

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Fearnley v Finlay [2014] QCA 155

PARTIES:

PAUL ROBERT FEARNLEY
(appellant)
v
ADRIAN ROSS FINLAY, ANDREW FREDERICK FINLAY, BARBARA RUTH FINLAY AND GRAHAM ROSS FINLAY TRADING AS “A.R. FINLAY & SONS”
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 2137 of 2014
DC No 1 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

27 June 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1 May 2014

JUDGES:

Holmes and Morrison JJA and Jackson J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

Appeal allowed.1.    

The orders of the primary Judge are set aside.2.    

Paragraphs 1(d), 7 and the claim for a declaration of of claim.a lien and injunctive relief are struck out of the statement3.    

The respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal and of the application to strike out the relevant parts of the statement of claim.4.   

CATCHWORDS:

STATUTES – ACTS OF PARLIAMENT – INTERPRETATION – where the respondent alleged the appellant had a contract for agistment of his cattle on the respondent’s properties – where the agistment contract was not limited to storage of the cattle – where the respondent sought a declaration of a lien over the appellant’s cattle under the Storage Liens Act 1973 (Qld) – whether the agistment of cattle constituted goods deposited with a storer for storage

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 14A, s 14B
Bills of Sale and Other Instruments Act 1955 (Qld)
Disposal of Uncollected Goods Act 1967 (Qld)
Possessory Liens Act of 1942 (Qld)
Storage Liens Act 1973 (Qld), s 3

Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue (2009) 239 CLR 27; [2009] HCA 41, cited
Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v GSF Australia Pty Ltd (2005) 221 CLR 568; [2005] HCA 26, cited
Attorney-General (NT) v Emmerson (2014) 88 ALJR 522; [2014] HCA 13, cited
Bell v Clare (1989) 23 FCR 274; [1989] FCA 483, cited
Big Top Hereford Pty Ltd v Thomas (2006) 12 BPR 23,843; [2006] NSWSC 1159, cited
CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd (1997) 187 CLR 384; [1997] HCA 2, cited
Clunies-Ross v The Commonwealth (1984) 155 CLR 193; [1984] HCA 65, cited
Coastal Rutile Management Ltd v Majeau Carrying Co Pty Ltd [1973] Qd R 68, referred to
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Consolidated Media Holdings Ltd (2012) 87 ALJR 98; [2012] HCA 55, cited
Grant v YYH Holdings Pty Ltd [2012] NSWCA 360, cited
Helton v Sullivan [1968] Qd R 562, cited
Lacey v Attorney-General (Qld) (2011) 242 CLR 573; [2011] HCA 10, cited
Lee v New South Wales Crime Commission (2013) ALJR 1082; [2013] HCA 39, cited
Majeau Carrying Co Pty Ltd v Coastal Rutile Ltd (1973) 129 CLR 48; [1973] HCA 22, referred to
R v C[2002] QCA…

Continue reading Fearnley v Finlay

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Fearnley v Finlay [2014] QCA 155
Case
[2014] QCA 155
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal involved the appellant, Fearnley, and the respondent, Finlay. Finlay alleged that Fearnley had a contract for the agistment of his cattle on Finlay's properties, which was not limited to the storage of the cattle. Finlay sought a declaration of a lien over Fearnley's cattle under the Storage Liens Act 1973 (Qld), contending that the agistment of cattle constituted goods deposited with a storer for storage. The central issue before the court was whether the agistment of cattle constituted goods deposited with a storer for the purposes of the Storage Liens Act.

The court examined the nature of the agistment contract and whether it fell within the definition of "goods deposited with a storer for storage" under the Storage Liens Act. The court considered whether the agistment contract involved merely the storage of goods or if it included other services, such as the provision of food, water, and medical attention. The court concluded that the agistment contract did not constitute goods deposited with a storer for storage, as it involved more than just storage. The court found that the agistment contract included additional services that went beyond mere storage, and therefore did not fall within the definition of "goods deposited with a storer for storage" under the Storage Liens Act.

The court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the primary judge, and struck out paragraphs 1(d), 7, and the claim for a declaration of a lien and injunctive relief from the statement of claim. The court ordered that the respondent pay the appellant's costs of the appeal and of the application to strike out the relevant parts of the statement of claim. The court's decision was based on its interpretation of the Storage Liens Act and the nature of the agistment contract between the parties.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed.1.

The orders of the primary Judge are set aside.2.

Paragraphs 1(d), 7 and the claim for a declaration of of claim.a lien and injunctive relief are struck out of the statement3.

The respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal and of the application to strike out the relevant parts of the statement of claim.4.

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.