Tort - Conversion - Sale of interest in racehorse - Whether property transferred by terms of contract - Conversion by coowner - Conversion by person registered as owner of horse - Damages

Contract - Sale of interest in racehorse - Whether time of the essence - Whether contract terminated by late tender of balance of purchase price - Damages for breach

Property - Sale of interest in racehorse - Failure to account for share of proceeds of racing - Coowner's liability to account

Legislation:

Sale of Goods Act 1895

Result:

Judgment for the plaintiff. Defendants liable in damages

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff:     Mr R J Price
First defendant              :     Mr A J Camp
Second defendant          :     Mr A J Camp

Solicitors:

Plaintiff:     HHG Legal Group
First defendant              :     Butcher Paull & Calder
Second defendant          :     Butcher Paull & Calder

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Baker v Barclay's Bank Ltd [1955] 2 All ER 571
Baltic Shipping Co v Dillon (1993) 176 CLR 344
Coleman v Harvey [1989] 1 NZLR 723
Dennis v Dennis (1971) 124 CLR 317
Fraser v Kershaw (1856) 2 K & J 496
French v Styring (1857) 2 CBNS 357
Hewitt v Debus [2004] NSWCA 54
Hill v Reglon Pty Limited [2007] NSWCA 295
Holland v Wiltshire (1954) 90 CLR 409
Jarvis v Williams [1955] 1 WLR 71
Jones v Samios; Queensland Harness Racing Board (Unreported, QSC 1246/1984, 29 March 1985)
Kitano v Commonwealth of Australia [1974] HCA 31; (1974) 129 CLR 151
Marriott v Franklin (1993) 60 SASR 457
Mayhew v Herrick (1849) 7 CB 229; (1849) 137 ER 92
Parr v Ash (1876) 14 SCR (NSW) 352
Penfolds Wines Pty Ltd v Elliott (1946) 74 CLR 204
Re Gillie; ex parte Cornell v Gillie (1996) 150 ALR 110
Ryan v Dries [2002] NSWCA 3
Squire v Rogers (1979) 27 ALR 330
Toll (FGCT) Pty Ltd v Alphapharm Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 52; (2004) 219 CLR 165

STAUDE DCJ:

Introduction

The plaintiff and the first defendant are brothers and the second defendant is the spouse of the first. I will call them by their first names. The dispute is over an alleged contract between Marshall and Preston made orally in or about March 2001 for the purchase by Marshall from Preston of a half share in a thoroughbred colt later named Changing Lanes (the Changing Lanes' contract).
Marshall's case is that the contract was in the same terms as a previous agreement with respect to a horse named Knight Reflector. As in that case, the purchase price was $5,000 of which $3,000 was payable forthwith and the balance upon the horse becoming a 2‑year‑old. Marshall contends that he borrowed $3,000…

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.

Continue reading Flynn v Flynn

Details

AGLC: Flynn v Flynn [2011] WADC 141
Case: [2011] WADC 141
Decision Date: 7 SEPTEMBER 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Flynn v Flynn, the dispute involved a co-ownership arrangement for a racehorse named "Elegant". The plaintiff, Flynn, claimed that the defendant, also Flynn, wrongfully converted his share of the horse by selling it without authorisation. Additionally, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant failed to account for his share of the proceeds from the horse's racing activities. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The court was required to determine several key legal issues. Firstly, whether the sale of the plaintiff's interest in the horse constituted a conversion. Secondly, whether the contract for the sale of the interest was conditional on the prompt payment of the purchase price, and if so, whether the defendant's late payment resulted in a termination of the contract. Thirdly, the court had to decide on the appropriate measure of damages for the alleged conversion and breach of contract, as well as the defendant's liability to account for the share of racing proceeds.

The court found that the defendant had indeed converted the plaintiff's share in the racehorse by selling it without authorisation, despite being registered as the sole owner. The court held that the contract for the sale of the interest in the horse was not strictly conditional on the prompt payment of the purchase price, and thus, the defendant's late payment did not terminate the contract. The court awarded damages to the plaintiff for the conversion and breach of contract. Additionally, the court ordered the defendant to account for the plaintiff's share of the racing proceeds. The court's decision emphasised the importance of adhering to the terms of co-ownership agreements and the consequences of breaching such agreements.

In summary, the court found in favour of the plaintiff, awarding damages for conversion and breach of contract, as well as ordering the defendant to account for the share of racing proceeds. The court's decision underscored the need for co-owners to respect each other's rights and obligations in relation to jointly owned property.

Orders