ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF Trespass to Goods-Wine sold in bottles-Property in bottles retained by vintner-
Use of bottles by purchasers to carry other wine-Participation in use by hotel- keeper - Conversion - Trespass - Bailment - Equitable relief - Injunction - SYDNEY,
Application by vintner against hotelkeeper-Trade usage-Systematic course of July 29-31;
conduct-Remedy at common law.
The appellant made wine and sold it in bottles the ownership of which it retained. The bottles were embossed with the appellant's name and an intimation that they were the property of the appellant. The respondent, an hotelkeeper, from time to time sold bulk wine to customers who provided bottles in which to carry it away. These bottles were filled by the respondent. Among these bottles were some embossed in the manner stated. The respondent did not take any step to inform himself whether the bottles so filled were or were not owned by the appellant. An application by the appellant for an injunction to restrain an alleged trespass to goods by the respondent was refused. Upon appeal,
Held, by Starke, Dixon and McTiernan JJ. (Latham C.J. and Williams J. dissenting), that the appeal should be dismissed.
By Starke and McTiernan JJ. on the ground that the evidence did not establish that the respondent was in any systematic way or to any substantial extent dealing with the appellant's bottles in a manner inconsistent with owner. ship, or that the respondent was handling the bottles of the appellant except rarely and casually, therefore an injunction should not be granted and the appellant should be left to its remedies at common law.
By Dixon J. on the ground that the facts proved did not disclose the commis- sion by the respondent of any common law tort in respect of the appellant's property or possession thereof accordingly there was no foundation for the injunction and the equitable relief sought by the appellant.
Decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Full Court): Penfolds Wines Pty. Ltd. v. Elliott, (1946) 46 S.R. (N.S.W.) 217; 63 W.N. 103, by majority, affirmed.
(a) The effect of acts repugnant to a bailment and consequently operating as a determination of the bailment
(b) The rule that, where there has been a trespass de bonis an action lies against the person committing the trespass not only at the suit of the person in possession, but also at the suit of the person immediately entitled to posses- sion; and
(c) The supposed distinction between the consequences of the delivery by a bailee of possession of a chattel to a stranger and of the stranger's taking it out of his possession by his licence
APPEAL from the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
The principal relief claimed by Penfolds Wines Pty. Ltd. in a statement of claim brought by it in the equitable jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of New South Wales was an injunction to restrain…
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 Penfolds Wines Pty Ltd v Elliott
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Penfolds Wines Pty Ltd v Elliott [1946] HCA 46
Case
[1946] HCA 46
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Penfolds Wines Pty Ltd (the appellant) sought an injunction against James Peter Elliott (the respondent), an hotelkeeper, to restrain him from collecting, disposing of, or otherwise dealing with the appellant's branded bottles. The appellant manufactured and sold wine in bottles which it retained ownership of, and which were embossed with its name and a statement of ownership. The respondent sold bulk wine to customers who provided bottles, and he filled these bottles, including some belonging to the appellant, with wine not manufactured by the appellant, without taking steps to ascertain ownership.
The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the respondent's actions constituted a tortious interference with the appellant's property, specifically trespass to goods or conversion, and if so, whether an injunction was the appropriate remedy. The appellant argued that the respondent's use of its branded bottles for non-appellant wine amounted to an assumption of dominion over the property inconsistent with the appellant's ownership. The respondent contended that his actions did not amount to a tort, particularly as he received the bottles from customers who had possession and did not intend to permanently deprive the appellant of them.
A majority of the High Court (Starke, Dixon, and McTiernan JJ.) dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Starke and McTiernan JJ. found that the evidence did not establish that the respondent was systematically or substantially dealing with the appellant's bottles in a manner inconsistent with ownership, and that his handling of them was rare and casual, thus leaving the appellant to its common law remedies. Dixon J. concluded that the facts did not disclose the commission of any common law tort in respect of the appellant's property or possession, meaning there was no foundation for the equitable relief sought. Latham C.J. and Williams J. dissented, finding that the respondent's actions did constitute a trespass and that an injunction was warranted.