Tennant Ltd v McVeigh, D.R

Case [1995] FCA 427


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY )    NO. NG 3298 OF 1995
GENERAL DIVISION                 )

IN THE MATTER OF

HARRINGTONS METALLURGISTS LIMITED
(Receivers and Managers Appointed)

and the Corporations Law

BETWEEN:

TENNANT LIMITED
  Applicant

AND:

DEAN ROYSTON McVEIGH
  First Respondent

KENNETH JOHN RENNIE
  Second Respondent

JOHN RAYMOND GIBBINS
  Third Respondent

CORAM:    SACKVILLE J.
DATE:        23 JUNE, 1995
PLACE:    SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

  1. The notice of motion filed by the applicant on 21 June 1995 be dismissed.

NOTE:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY )    NO. NG 3298 OF 1995
GENERAL DIVISION                 )

IN THE MATTER OF

HARRINGTONS METALLURGISTS LIMITED
(Receivers and Managers Appointed)

and the Corporations Law

BETWEEN:

TENNANT LIMITED
  Applicant

AND:

DEAN ROYSTON McVEIGH
  First Respondent

KENNETH JOHN RENNIE
  Second Respondent

JOHN RAYMOND GIBBINS
  Third Respondent

CORAM:    SACKVILLE J.
DATE:        23 JUNE, 1995
PLACE:    SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
The Applicant ("Tennant") is a trader in gold and silver.  Its activities include purchasing what is known as gold dore and silver dore and engaging a company known as Harringtons Metallurgists Ltd ("Harringtons") to undertake toll refining to produce purer gold or silver from the dore by removing impurities.  The second and third respondents are the receivers and managers of Harringtons, appointed on 25 May 1995 pursuant to a deed of charge.  I shall refer to them as "the receivers".

In the principal proceedings, Tennant seeks a declaration that certain silver and gold, specified in the schedule to the application is its property.  The schedule is as follows:

"SCHEDULE TO APPLICATION

DATED 16.06.95

A.Silver

1.200 kilograms of silver purchased by the Applicant from Harringtons Metallurgists Limited for which payment was made of AUD 47,968.84 on 20/04/95 now allocated to the Applicant's account.

2.200 kilograms delivered by the Applicant to Harringtons Metallurgists Limited for toll refining on 23/05/95.

3.200 kilograms of silver purchased by the Applicant from Harringtons Metallurgists Limited for which payment was made in the sum of AUD49,757.13 on 22 May 1995.

B.Gold

1.904.294 grams of gold.

2.2059.500 grams of gold."

The application also seeks orders for the delivery up of the silver and gold identified in the schedule.  It is to be noted that Harringtons is not a party to Tennant's application.

The Proceedings
On 22 June 1993 Tennant moved the Court on notice for interim orders restraining the receivers from dealing with or disposing of the property described in the schedule to the application.  As the argument developed, it became clear that Tennant could not identify a precise quantity of silver and gold in the possession of Harringtons or the receivers, corresponding exactly to the items described in the schedule.  Mr Laughton, on behalf of Tennant, said that the applicant sought to restrain the receivers from disposing of the quantities of silver and gold specified in the schedule, insofar as they formed part of larger quantities of silver…

Details
AGLC
Tennant Ltd v McVeigh, D.R [1995] FCA 427
Case
[1995] FCA 427
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tennant Limited, a gold and silver trader, sought to establish a proprietary interest over certain quantities of silver and gold held by Harringtons Metallurgists Ltd and its receivers, Dean Royston McVeigh, Kenneth John Rennie, and John Raymond Gibbins, following Harringtons' receivership. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether Tennant had a sufficient title to the specified silver and gold to warrant injunctive relief against the receivers. The court had to decide whether Tennant's transactions with Harringtons constituted a bailment or any other form of proprietary interest in the silver and gold held by Harringtons or the receivers.

The court examined the nature of each transaction between Tennant and Harringtons, assessing whether physical allocation or other definitive acts were taken to dedicate specific quantities of silver and gold to Tennant. The evidence showed that Harringtons had not physically allocated the gold and silver in question, and any credits to Tennant's account were merely paper entries without physical backing. Consequently, Tennant could not demonstrate a bailment or other proprietary claim to the specific quantities of silver and gold held by Harringtons or the receivers. The court concluded that Tennant had not established an arguable case for proprietary interest in the silver and gold, thereby dismissing Tennant's application for interim relief.

The court's reasoning hinged on the absence of physical allocation or other definitive acts by Harringtons to satisfy Tennant's orders. Given the lack of identifiable and dedicated silver and gold corresponding to Tennant's claims, the court found no basis for Tennant to claim a proprietary interest. The proceedings were also deemed defective for not joining Harringtons, which would require the consent of the administrator or leave of the Court under the Corporations Law. Thus, the court dismissed Tennant's application for interlocutory relief, affirming that Tennant had not made out an arguable claim for the relief sought.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.