Appeal Outcome: Special leave refused with costs by the High Court - 13 June 2008
New South Wales
Court of Appeal
CITATION: Hill & Anor v Reglon Pty Limited [2007] NSWCA 295 HEARING DATE(S): 29 August 2007
JUDGMENT DATE:
24 October 2007JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 1; Beazley JA at 2; Ipp JA at 157 DECISION: 1. The appeal is dismissed with costs; 2. The Amended Notice of Cross-Appeal is allowed in part, with costs; 3. The parties, within seven days, are to bring in short minutes of order to accord with these reasons. CATCHWORDS: BAILMENT – bailment created by contract – whether common law principles continue to apply depends upon construction of contract – common law rights excluded only where clearest terms used – bailment contract provided remedies were not exclusive but cumulative to remedies existing at law – not necessary for bailor to accept repudiation for the right of possession to revert to bailor - BAILMENT – goods of bailor interchangeable with goods of third party so as to be indistinguishable – where goods mixed by accident owners become owners in common of the mixed property – whether goods were mixed - BAILMENT – purpose of bailment was for on-hire of goods – bailor entitled to immediate possession where bailee performs act repugnant to or inconsistent with terms of bailment – whether action of bailee providing goods to third party for on-hire was repugnant to bailment - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – cause of action accrued after proceedings commenced – Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) s 64 allows document to be amended to substitute cause of action that accrues after proceedings commenced - TORTS – conversion – damages of loss for conversion ordinarily full value of thing converted - TORTS – conversion – goods converted where they are dealt with inconsistently with owner’s rights with intention of denying owner’s rights or asserting right inconsistent with them – no requirement that goods must be destroyed or sold in a market overt – whether licence agreement vesting exclusive control over goods with third party was inconsistent with bailor’s right to immediate possession LEGISLATION CITED: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) s 64
Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) s 36A
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 14.17CASES CITED: Baker v Barclay’s Bank Ltd [1955] 2 All ER 571
Baldry v Jackson (1976) 2 NSWLR 415
Barnardiston v Chapman and Smith (1715) 4 East 121; (1715) 102 ER 776
Barton v Williams (1822) 5 B & Ald 395
Big Top Hereford Pty Limited v Thomas [2006] NSWSC 1159
Buckley v Gross (1863) 3 B & S 566
Coleman v Harvey [1989] 1 NZLR 723
Foskett v McKeown & Ors [2001] 1 AC 102
Harper v Goodsell (1870) LR 5 QB 422
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd v Greenstone Shipping SA (Panama) [1988] QB 345
Kitano v The Commonwealth of Australia (1974) 129 CLR 151; [1974] HCA 31
Mayhew v Herrick (1849) CB 229
McDonald v Lane (1882) 7 SCR 462
North…
Continue reading Hill v Reglon Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Hill v Reglon Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 295
- Case
- [2007] NSWCA 295
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal concerned a dispute between the bailor, Hill, and the bailee, Reglon Pty Ltd, regarding the on-hire of goods. The primary issue was whether Reglon's actions constituted a breach of the bailment contract and, if so, what remedies were available to Hill.
The court was required to determine whether Reglon's actions in providing the bailed goods to a third party for on-hire were repugnant to the terms of the bailment agreement, thereby entitling Hill to immediate possession. Further, the court considered whether the goods had been mixed with those of a third party in a manner that would render them indistinguishable, and if so, how this affected ownership. The court also examined the principles of conversion in tort, specifically whether Reglon's dealings with the goods were inconsistent with Hill's rights and whether the damages for conversion should be the full value of the converted goods. Finally, the court addressed the procedural question of whether a cause of action that accrued after proceedings commenced could be substituted by amendment.
The court reasoned that the bailment contract did not exclude common law remedies, and that Reglon's act of providing the goods to a third party for on-hire was inconsistent with the terms of the bailment, entitling Hill to immediate possession. The court found that the goods had not been mixed in a way that would create a tenancy in common. Regarding conversion, the court held that dealing with goods inconsistently with the owner's rights, with the intention of denying those rights or asserting an inconsistent right, constituted conversion, and that the damages for conversion were ordinarily the full value of the goods. The court also confirmed that amendments to substitute a cause of action accruing after proceedings commenced were permissible under section 64 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).
The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the amended notice of cross-appeal was allowed in part, with costs. The parties were ordered to bring in short minutes of order within seven days to accord with the reasons.
The court was required to determine whether Reglon's actions in providing the bailed goods to a third party for on-hire were repugnant to the terms of the bailment agreement, thereby entitling Hill to immediate possession. Further, the court considered whether the goods had been mixed with those of a third party in a manner that would render them indistinguishable, and if so, how this affected ownership. The court also examined the principles of conversion in tort, specifically whether Reglon's dealings with the goods were inconsistent with Hill's rights and whether the damages for conversion should be the full value of the converted goods. Finally, the court addressed the procedural question of whether a cause of action that accrued after proceedings commenced could be substituted by amendment.
The court reasoned that the bailment contract did not exclude common law remedies, and that Reglon's act of providing the goods to a third party for on-hire was inconsistent with the terms of the bailment, entitling Hill to immediate possession. The court found that the goods had not been mixed in a way that would create a tenancy in common. Regarding conversion, the court held that dealing with goods inconsistently with the owner's rights, with the intention of denying those rights or asserting an inconsistent right, constituted conversion, and that the damages for conversion were ordinarily the full value of the goods. The court also confirmed that amendments to substitute a cause of action accruing after proceedings commenced were permissible under section 64 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).
The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the amended notice of cross-appeal was allowed in part, with costs. The parties were ordered to bring in short minutes of order within seven days to accord with the reasons.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal is dismissed with costs; 2. The Amended Notice of Cross-Appeal is allowed in part, with costs; 3. The parties, within seven days, are to bring in short minutes of order to accord with these reasons. (per BEAZLEY JA (SPIGELMAN CJ and IPP JA agreeing)
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.