Legal Research
Cases
Poulton v Conrad

Poulton v Conrad

Case [2025] TASFC 7 19 September 2025

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

[2025] TASFC 7

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (FULL COURT)
CITATION:	Poulton v Conrad [2025] TASFC 7
PARTIES:	POULTON, Adam
v
CONRAD, Jeff
FILE NO:	896/2025
JUDGMENT
APPEALED FROM:	Poulton v Conrad [2025] TASSC 2
DELIVERED ON:	19 September 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Hobart
HEARING DATE:	1 July 2025
JUDGMENT OF:	Shanahan CJ, Estcourt J, Jago J
CATCHWORDS:

Appeal and New Trial – General principles – Points and objections not taken below – When not allowed to be raised on appeal – Particular case – Question of law – Whether point not raised on intermediary appeal can be raised on a subsequent appeal – Where the appellant raised and argued the point at trial and subsequently abandoned it on the intermediary appeal – Single ground in this appeal contrary to the case run below – If the appellant were allowed to rely on the ground of appeal pleaded then the respondent would be denied opportunity to cross-appeal below – The appellant's notice of appeal should be confined to the ambit of the facts run on intermediary appeal – Appeal dismissed.

Aust Dig Appeal and New Trial [100]

Appeal and New Trial – Appeal general principles – Right of appeal – When appeal lies – Error of law – Particular cases involving error of law – Failure to give reasons for decision – Adequacy of reasons – Trial Judge held bitcoin intangible – Upheld Magistrates finding of conversion and detinue – Appellant submit intangible property not subject to action – Argument allowed despite not raised below – Person or entity with key to access the wallet is in control of the Bitcoin – That control equates to possession of property sufficient for conversion and detinue – Powerful case for reconsidering dichotomy between choses in possession and choses in action to recognise intangible property – House of Lords highly persuasive but not binding – Company did not shield appellant – Appellant was in possession of the Bitcoin to establish action – Appeal dismissed.

Aust Dig Appeal and New Trial [25]

Legislation:
Magistrates (Civil Division) Act 1992 (Tas)
Supreme Court Civil Procedure Act 1932 (Tas)
Cases:
AA v Persons Unknown and Ors [2019] EWHC 3556
Barnett v Tasmania Water and Sewage Corporation Pty Ltd [2018] TASFC 7
Colonial Bank v Whinney [1885] 30 Ch D 2619
Dovuro Pty Ltd v Wilkins (2003) 215 CLR 317
Henderson v Walker [2019] NZHC 2184
National Provincial Bank v Ainsworth [1965] 1 AC 1175
OBG Ltd v Allan [2008] AC 1
Parker v The Queen [1963] HCA 14
Port Jackson Stevedoring Pty Ltd v Salmond & Spraggon (Aust) Pty Ltd 91980) 133 CLR 300
Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 589
Poulton v Conrad [2025] TASSC 2
Re Blockchain Tech Pty Ltd [2024] VSC 690
Yanner v Eaton [1999] HCA 53

Your Response Ltd v Datateam Business Media Ltd (2015) 1 QB 41

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Appellant: B McTaggart SC
Respondent: M Flanagan

Solicitors:

Appellant: BDF…

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 Poulton v Conrad

Details

AGLC: Poulton v Conrad [2025] TASFC 7
Case: [2025] TASFC 7
Decision Date: 19 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned Poulton (appellant) and Conrad (respondent) before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia. The dispute revolved around the appellant's attempt to raise a new ground of appeal that had not been pursued in an earlier, intermediary appeal.

The central legal issue before the Full Court was whether the appellant should be permitted to rely on a ground of appeal that had been abandoned during the intermediary appeal, despite having been raised at trial. The court was required to consider the principles governing the raising of new points on appeal, particularly where doing so would prejudice the respondent's ability to have sought a cross-appeal in the prior proceedings.

The Full Court reasoned that the appellant's notice of appeal ought to be confined to the scope of the arguments presented and considered in the intermediary appeal. To allow the appellant to resurrect a point abandoned on the intermediary appeal would unfairly deny the respondent the opportunity to have sought a cross-appeal at that earlier stage. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal.

Orders