Perpetual Trustees and National Executors of Tasmania Ltd v Perkins

The case of Perpetual Trustees and National Executors of Tasmania Ltd v Perkins involved a dispute over the ownership of two portraits, one of Emmely Frances Perkins and the other of her husband John Perkins. The plaintiffs, Elizabeth Perkins and the Perpetual Trustees Limited, as executors of the estates of Joan Perkins and Muriel Atkins, claimed ownership as tenants in common of the portraits and sought their return or payment of their value. The portraits had been in the possession of various members of the Perkins family for over a century. The central issue was the determination of ownership, which would resolve the dispute. The court examined the family history and the circumstances surrounding the ownership and possession of the portraits. The plaintiffs argued that title to the paintings passed to Nora by virtue of Allan's will and subsequently to Elizabeth, Joan, and Muriel by virtue of Nora's will. However, the defendants contended that the plaintiffs had not proven their ownership on the balance of probabilities.

The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not discharged the onus of proof that Nora owned the portraits at the time of her death in 1964 or that Elizabeth, Joan, and Muriel became the owners thereafter. The court found that the evidence did not support the plaintiffs' claim that they were the owners of the portraits. The court also allowed an application by the defendants to amend the defences to plead the Limitation Act 1974, s6(1), which would bar the plaintiffs' claim for conversion or detention of the painting. The court found that the plaintiffs would suffer no prejudice if the amendment were allowed and that no injustice would flow from making the amendment. The court held that the plaintiffs' claim was barred by the Limitation Act 1974, s6(1). Therefore, judgment was entered for the defendants.