Pratten v Pratten

Case [2005] QCA 213

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Pratten v Pratten [2005] QCA 213

PARTIES:

WAYNNE PETER PRATTEN (BY HIS LITIGATION GUARDIAN THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF QLD)
(plaintiff/appellant)
v
SUSAN MARY PRATTEN
(defendant/respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 158 of 2005
Appeal No 159 of 2005
DC No 176 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

17 June 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

3 May 2005

JUDGES:

Williams and Jerrard JJA and Muir J  Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

Application for leave in Appeal No 158 of 2005 granted1.   

Appeal allowed 2.   

Set aside orders made below on the appellant’s claims and substitute the following orders;3.   

The respondent pay the appellant the sum of $2,287 (being interest on moneys withheld from the appellant calculated in accordance with exhibit 4)(a)     

The appellant’s claims for detinue and/or detention of the chattels be remitted to the District Court for re-hearing(b)     

The respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal to be assessed on the standard basis(c)     

The respondent pay the appellant’s costs of and incidental to the trial of the appellant’s claims and the respondent’s counterclaims to be assessed on the relevant Magistrates Court scale(d)     

CATCHWORDS:

EQUITY – FIDUCIARY OBLIGATIONS – CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND DUTY – where respondent had power of attorney with respect to appellant’s affairs – where respondent sold appellant’s cattle on appellant’s instructions and claimed entitlement to sale proceeds – where such entitlement disputed – where sale proceeds delivered to appellant after some delay – whether fiduciary obligation owed by respondent to appellant ceased upon revocation of respondent’s power of attorney – whether interest payable on sale proceeds for the period withheld

TORTS – TROVER AND DETINUE – WHAT CONSTITUTES CONVERSION – DEMAND AND REFUSAL – where respondent in possession of chattels belonging to appellant – where appellant’s solicitors demand delivery of chattels – where respondent’s silence in the face of demand amounts to implicit refusal to comply – whether respondent having dealt with chattels so as to protect and preserve them a relevant consideration – whether sufficient evidence to find respondent unlawfully converted or detained chattels

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), s 116(2)(a)
Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld), s 47

Alicia Hosiery Ltd v Brown Shipley & Co [1970] 1 QB 195, cited
Australian Protective Electronics Pty Ltd v Pabflon Pty Ltd (1996) 35 IPR 327, cited
Barclays Bank Ltd vQuistclose Investments Ltd [1970] AC 567, followed
Clayton v Le Roy [1911] 2 KB 1031, cited
Edgell v Day (1865) LR 1 CP 80, cited
General and Finance Facilities Ltd v Cooks Cars (Romford) Ltd [1963] 1 WLR 644, cited
Mann v Carnell (1999) 201 CLR 1, applied
Miller v Dell [1891] 1 QB 468, cited
Parker v McKenna (1874) LR 10 Ch App 96, cited
Schmidt v Argent & Ors [2003] QCA…

Continue reading Pratten v Pratten

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Pratten v Pratten [2005] QCA 213
Case
[2005] QCA 213
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Pratten v Pratten involved the appellant, who sought to recover sale proceeds from the respondent, who had acted as their attorney in selling the appellant's cattle. The appellant disputed the respondent's entitlement to the sale proceeds, arguing that the respondent had breached their fiduciary obligations. The legal issues before the court were whether the respondent's fiduciary obligations ceased upon the revocation of their power of attorney, and whether the respondent should pay interest on the sale proceeds withheld from the appellant. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the respondent unlawfully converted or detained the appellant's chattels, following a demand for their delivery.

The court found that the respondent's fiduciary obligations did not cease upon the revocation of their power of attorney. Consequently, the respondent owed a duty to account for the sale proceeds to the appellant. The court held that the respondent should pay interest on the sale proceeds for the period they were withheld from the appellant, as per the terms outlined in exhibit 4. Regarding the appellant's claims for detinue and detention of the chattels, the court found that the respondent's silence in the face of a demand for delivery amounted to an implicit refusal, which constituted conversion. However, the court remitted these claims to the District Court for re-hearing to allow for a comprehensive examination of all relevant evidence.

The appeal was allowed, and the orders included the respondent paying the appellant the sum of $2,287 for the interest on the withheld sale proceeds, along with the appellant's costs of the appeal and the trial. The claims for detinue and detention of the chattels were to be re-heard in the District Court, and the respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of and incidental to the trial of the appellant's claims and the respondent's counterclaims, to be assessed on the relevant Magistrates Court scale.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave in Appeal No 158 of 2005 granted1.

Appeal allowed 2.

Set aside orders made below on the appellant’s claims and substitute the following orders;3.

The respondent pay the appellant the sum of $2,287 (being interest on moneys withheld from the appellant calculated in accordance with exhibit 4)(a)

The appellant’s claims for detinue and/or detention of the chattels be remitted to the District Court for re-hearing(b)

The respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal to be assessed on the standard basis(c)

The respondent pay the appellant’s costs of and incidental to the trial of the appellant’s claims and the respondent’s counterclaims to be assessed on the relevant Magistrates Court scale(d)

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.