Nguyen v Weber - [2003] NTCA 8

Nguyen v Weber [2003] NTCA 8
PARTIES:NGUYEN, THI PHOUNG
v

WEBER, JOE

TITLE OF COURT:  COURT OF APPEAL OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION
FILE NO:AP14 of 2002 (9908732)
DELIVERED:  4 April 2003
HEARING DATES:  11 March 2003
JUDGMENT OF:  MARTIN CJ, MILDREN & RILEY JJ
CATCHWORDS:
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:J Dearn
Respondent:  P Cantrill
Solicitors:
Appellant:Brian Johns
Respondent:  T S Lee
Judgment category classification:      B
Judgment ID Number:  mar0312
Number of pages:  10

mar0312
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Nguyen v Weber [2003] NTCA 8
No. AP14 of 2002 (9908732)

BETWEEN:
NGUYEN THI PHUONG

Appellant
AND:
JOE WEBER

Respondent

CORAM: MARTIN CJ, MILDREN & RILEY JJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 4 April 2003)
MARTIN CJ

I agree with Riley J, for the reasons he advances, that the respondent excluded the appellant from possession of the machine in question and prevented her from exercising her rights as a co-owner. In so doing he acted in a manner inconsistent with her rights and thus was guilty of conversion.

The respondent’s claim to a lien for monies advanced to Tai, a co-owner of the machine, can not be maintained given the respondent’s delivery of the machine to the appellant as held by Angel J. That being so, the respondent has no claim against the appellant for monies advanced by him to Tai.

I agree with the orders proposed by Justice Riley.

MILDREN J:

I have had the opportunity to read in draft a copy of the judgment of Riley J. I agree with his Honour that unless the respondent had a valid lien over the machine, the respondent converted the machine for the reasons given by his Honour.
However, in my opinion, there is no evidence that the respondent ever had a lien over the machine. I am unable to see how Angel J concluded that when the respondent facilitated the return of the machine to Tai Huu Nguyen, he acknowledged that he held the machine for and on behalf of Tai. The respondent's claim to a lien seems to have rested on the assumption that as he had paid the bailiff the moneys Tai Huu Nguyen owed to Mr Gilbert and thereby released the machine from the warrant of seizure and sale, he acquired a lien over the property. No authority was cited for this proposition. In my opinion a lien did not arise in these circumstances. Nor was there any evidence of a pledge. The cross-appeal must therefore be dismissed.
I agree with the orders proposed by Riley J.
RILEY J

In 1998 the appellant and Tai Huu Nguyen (Tai) entered into an agreement to purchase a mango cleaning and grading machine. There is now no dispute that the machine was purchased by the appellant and Tai as tenants in common in equal shares. Pursuant to the agreement between the appellant and Tai the machine was delivered to the appellant’s mango farm at Baddington Road Humpty…

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 Nguyen v Weber

Details

AGLC: Nguyen v Weber [2003] NTCA 8
Case: [2003] NTCA 8
Decision Date: 4 April 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Nguyen v Weber involves the co-owners of a mango cleaning and grading machine, Nguyen and Tai, and Weber, who had possession of the machine on behalf of Tai. The case was heard by the Court of Appeal of the Northern Territory. The central legal issues in the appeal were whether Weber's actions constituted conversion against Nguyen and whether Weber had a valid lien over the machine. The appeal stemmed from a previous judgment in the Local Court that found both Tai and Weber had converted the machine and awarded Nguyen nominal damages. Weber had counterclaimed for the repayment of monies he had advanced to Tai to release the machine from a bailiff's seizure, claiming a lien over the machine. The Supreme Court of the Northern Territory allowed Weber's appeal, dismissing the finding of conversion against him and his counterclaim for the monies advanced.

The Court of Appeal held that Weber did convert the machine against Nguyen by asserting a right to possession inconsistent with Nguyen's rights as a co-owner. The Court found that Weber's claim of a right to retain possession of the machine until he was repaid the monies he advanced to Tai was inconsistent with Nguyen's rights. The Court rejected Weber's claim of a lien over the machine, finding no evidence to support that a lien existed. The Court of Appeal restored the original finding of conversion against Weber and dismissed his counterclaim for the monies advanced. The costs orders of the Supreme Court were set aside and the costs orders of the Local Court were restored, with Weber ordered to pay Nguyen's costs of the appeals.

Orders