James Geoffrey Rolfe v Investec Bank (Australia) Ltd

[2014] HCASL 140

JAMES GEOFFREY ROLFE

v

INVESTEC BANK (AUSTRALIA) LTD

[2014] HCASL 140
M26/2014

1. The applicant was a director of James Rolfe Transport (Vic) Pty Ltd ("JRT") which carried on a shipping container business at premises leased from Glodale Pty Ltd ("Glodale").  The applicant and his wife were the only directors of Glodale.             In 2001 the respondent made loans to Glodale totalling $11.8 million secured by, amongst other things, a registered mortgage over the JRT premises, and a fixed and floating charge over the assets of JRT.  Glodale defaulted on the loan in mid-2002 and JRT went into liquidation in 2003.  The respondent then took possession of the JRT premises as mortgagee in possession.  On 20 February 2003, an auction of all of JRT's assets was conducted and amongst the goods sold were a number of shipping containers. 

2. On 13 May 2009, the applicant commenced proceedings in the County Court of Victoria alleging that the respondent had granted him permission to continue storing containers containing vintage Porsches on the premises after it took possession, the removal of which constituted a breach of a bailment agreement.  The County Court of Victoria (Judge Kings) dismissed the proceedings. 

3. The Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Nettle and Beach JJA and McMillan AJA) dismissed an appeal from the decision of the County Court.  The Court of Appeal found that the respondent agreed to no more than allowing the applicant to leave his containers on the site temporarily, provided he kept them out of the way and that they were removed prior to the completion of the sale.  The arrangement was essentially permissive and without any assumption of liability for safekeeping.

4. As the applicant does not have legal representation, the application falls to be dealt with under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004.

5. The applicant seeks special leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal.  The applicant's submissions fail to identify any reason to doubt the correctness of the decision of the Court of Appeal.  The application is dismissed.

6. Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

V.M. Bell
15 August 2014 S.J. Gageler