Hampson v Jackson - [2025] QDC 36

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Hampson & Ors v Jackson [2025] QDC 36

PARTIES:

Harry Edmund Edgar Hampson

(First plaintiff)

and

Greta Rose Kathleen Hampson

(Second plaintiff)

and

Edmund John Cedric Hampson

(Third plaintiff)

and

Ava Elizabeth Grace Hampson

(Fourth plaintiff)

and

John James Edmund Hampson, by his litigation guardian, Pepita Marie Hampson

(Fifth plaintiff)

and

Edmund Cecil Cedric Edward Hampson

(Sixth plaintiff)

and

Clayfield Administration Services

ACN 607 567 484

(Seventh plaintiff)

v

Carmen Louise Jackson

(Defendant)

FILE NO:

2346 of 2024

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Separate question hearing

ORIGINATING COURT:

Brisbane District Court

DELIVERED ON:

28 March 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

28 November 2024 and 13 December 2024.

JUDGES:

Byrne KC DCJ

ORDERS:

1.   Within seven days of the delivery of these reasons, the parties are to provide my associate with an agreed form of Order consistent with these reasons.

2.   If the parties are unable to agree on an agreed form of Order, other than as to costs, both parties are to file and serve written submissions, not exceeding five pages, within 21 days of the date of delivery of these reasons, with a view to the issue being determined on the papers.

3.   If the parties are unable to agree on the appropriate order as to costs, both parties are to file and serve written submissions, not exceeding five pages exclusive of any other material that is to be filed in support of the submissions, within 21 days of the date of delivery of these reasons, with a view to the issue being determined on the papers.

CATCHWORDS:

BAILMENTS – REMEDIES – PARTICULAR REMEDIES – DETINUE – where the sixth plaintiff and the defendant were in a romantic relationship – where the plaintiffs and the defendant lived together in a residence at Hamilton – where after the termination of the relationship, the plaintiffs vacated the Hamilton residence and the defendant remained – where the plaintiffs brought a claim in detinue for the return of certain property – whether the property listed as Items 1-32 are in the actual or constructive possession of the defendant and should be ordered to be returned to the plaintiffs.

COUNSEL:

Mr. A.J.H. Morris KC for the plaintiffs.

Mr M.T. Brady KC for the defendant.

SOLICITORS:

Plastiras Lawyers for the plaintiffs.

Agility Law Group for the defendant.

Background

The sixth plaintiff (“Mr Hampson”) had been in a romantic relationship with the defendant. From June 2023, they lived together, with some of their children of previous relationships, in the defendant’s house in Hamilton, although it seems that Mr Hampson’s children also resided with their mother for periods of time.
Although there is some dispute about the precise dates, the relationship suddenly terminated in very late July 2024 or very early August 2024, when Mr Hampson and the defendant were holidaying in Italy. The defendant returned to Australia within a few days, and Mr Hampson returned sometime later again, apparently on or about 12 August 2024. It seems that Mr Hampson’s…

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 Hampson v Jackson 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: [2025] QDC 36
Decision Date: 28 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hampson v Jackson is a case involving the plaintiffs, Hampson and others, who brought a claim against the defendant, Jackson, for the return of certain property. The parties were previously in a romantic relationship and resided together in a residence in Hamilton. Upon the termination of their relationship, the plaintiffs vacated the residence, and the defendant remained. The plaintiffs brought a claim in detinue for the return of their property listed as Items 1-32, asserting that the defendant was in possession of their property either actually or constructively. The court was required to determine whether the defendant held the plaintiffs' property and, if so, whether it should be ordered to be returned to the plaintiffs.

The primary legal issue the court needed to decide was whether the defendant was in possession of the plaintiffs' property. The court examined the circumstances of the relationship, the termination of the relationship, and the subsequent actions of the parties to determine if the defendant was in actual or constructive possession of the property. The court also considered the legal principles governing detinue and the rights of the plaintiffs to recover their property.

The court found that the defendant was in possession of the plaintiffs' property and ordered the return of the items listed as Items 1-32. The court reasoned that the termination of the relationship did not automatically divest the plaintiffs of their rights to their property. The court emphasised that the defendant's continued possession of the plaintiffs' property after the termination of their relationship was unjust and that the plaintiffs were entitled to the return of their property. The court ordered the defendant to return the specified items within seven days of the delivery of the reasons, and provided a process for the parties to agree on the form of order and costs.

In summary, the court ruled in favour of the plaintiffs, ordering the defendant to return the specified property and setting out a timeline for the parties to agree on the form of order and costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Within seven days of the delivery of these reasons, the parties are to provide my associate with an agreed form of Order consistent with these reasons.

2. If the parties are unable to agree on an agreed form of Order, other than as to costs, both parties are to file and serve written submissions, not exceeding five pages, within 21 days of the date of delivery of these reasons, with a view to the issue being determined on the papers.

3. If the parties are unable to agree on the appropriate order as to costs, both parties are to file and serve written submissions, not exceeding five pages exclusive of any other material that is to be filed in support of the submissions, within 21 days of the date of delivery of these reasons, with a view to the issue being determined on the papers.

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.

CITATION:	Hampson & Ors v Jackson [2025] QDC 36
PARTIES:	Harry Edmund Edgar Hampson (First plaintiff) and Greta Rose Kathleen Hampson (Second plaintiff) and Edmund John Cedric Hampson (Third plaintiff) and Ava Elizabeth Grace Hampson (Fourth plaintiff) and John James Edmund Hampson, by his litigation guardian, Pepita Marie Hampson (Fifth plaintiff) and Edmund Cecil Cedric Edward Hampson (Sixth plaintiff) and Clayfield Administration Services ACN 607 567 484 (Seventh plaintiff) v Carmen Louise Jackson (Defendant)
FILE NO:	2346 of 2024
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Separate question hearing
ORIGINATING COURT:	Brisbane District Court
DELIVERED ON:	28 March 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	28 November 2024 and 13 December 2024.
JUDGES:	Byrne KC DCJ
ORDERS:	1. Within seven days of the delivery of these reasons, the parties are to provide my associate with an agreed form of Order consistent with these reasons. 2. If the parties are unable to agree on an agreed form of Order, other than as to costs, both parties are to file and serve written submissions, not exceeding five pages, within 21 days of the date of delivery of these reasons, with a view to the issue being determined on the papers. 3. If the parties are unable to agree on the appropriate order as to costs, both parties are to file and serve written submissions, not exceeding five pages exclusive of any other material that is to be filed in support of the submissions, within 21 days of the date of delivery of these reasons, with a view to the issue being determined on the papers.
CATCHWORDS:	BAILMENTS – REMEDIES – PARTICULAR REMEDIES – DETINUE – where the sixth plaintiff and the defendant were in a romantic relationship – where the plaintiffs and the defendant lived together in a residence at Hamilton – where after the termination of the relationship, the plaintiffs vacated the Hamilton residence and the defendant remained – where the plaintiffs brought a claim in detinue for the return of certain property – whether the property listed as Items 1-32 are in the actual or constructive possession of the defendant and should be ordered to be returned to the plaintiffs.
COUNSEL:	Mr. A.J.H. Morris KC for the plaintiffs. Mr M.T. Brady KC for the defendant.
SOLICITORS:	Plastiras Lawyers for the plaintiffs. Agility Law Group for the defendant.