United Rentals Australia Pty Ltd v Pacific Formwork (Aust)

MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	United Rentals Australia Pty Ltd v Pacific Formwork (AUST) Holdings Pty Limited
Citation:	[2023] ACTMC 30
Hearing Date:	5 September 2022; 8 September 2022; 19 December 2022
Decision Dates:	5 September 2022; 30 March 2023; 28 August 2023
Before:	Chief Magistrate Walker
Decisions:	See [32], [86-88], [96-98]
Catchwords:	CIVIL LAW – Application for damages in the torts of trespass, conversion or detinue – Applicability of the Uncollected Goods Act 1996 (ACT) – whether costs claimed under the Uncollected Goods Act 1996 (ACT) are reasonable
Legislation Cited:	Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) s 33(2A) Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (QLD) s 32CA(2) Court Procedure Rules 2005 (ACT) r 2.10 Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW) s 9(2) Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 (VIC) s 45(2) Legislation Act 2001 (ACT) s 160(1), 146 Uncollected Goods Act 1996 (ACT) (‘UG Act’) ss 3(1), 3(2), 5, 6, 7, 26(1), 26(2), 27, 32
Cases Cited:	Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] All ER 333 Hatton v Beaumont (1978) 20 ALR 314; 52 ALJ 589 Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 R v Delly [2003] ACTSC 113
Texts Cited:	Lexis-Nexis Australian Legal Dictionary 2016
Parties:	United Rentals Australia Pty Ltd (‘United’) ( Plaintiff) Pacific Formwork (AUST) Holdings Pty Limited (‘Pacific’) ( Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel Anca Costin ( Plaintiff) Brienna Anderson ( Defendant)
Solicitors Bartier Perry Lawyers ( Plaintiff) Aulich Civil Law ( Defendant)
File Number:	CS 7 of 2022

CHIEF MAGISTRATE WALKER:

Decision as to the applicability of the Uncollected Goods Act 1996 (ACT) (5 September 2022)

1․The claim is brought by the plaintiff, United Rentals Australia Pty Limited (“United”) against Pacific Formwork (AUST) Holdings Pty Limited ("Pacific”) for damages in the torts of trespass, conversion and detinue.
2․The claim arises in relation to the fact that Pacific has possession of nine shipping containers which were left on their land by a third party, Wridgway, when the latter went into liquidation. United owns the shipping containers which were leased to Wridgway and stored on property leased from Pacific. That lease terminated when Wridgway went into liquidation. Pacific defends the matter on the basis that the items have not been collected as required pursuant to provisions of the Uncollected Goods Act 1996 (ACT) (the UG Act) and counterclaims the costs incurred in relation to possession of the shipping containers pursuant to the UG Act.
3․The matter commenced before me today and was to proceed on the papers, with argument as to the plaintiff's application to rely on statements of Mr Craig Baker, an employee of United. Following receipt of opening submissions, the parties agreed that it would be beneficial for me to determine in the first instance whether the UG Act applies to the agreed facts dated 22 June 2022.
4․The UG Act’s long title is “an Act to provide for the disposal of uncollected, lost or abandoned goods, and for related purposes”.
5․Goods are defined in the dictionary to the UG Act as “movable personal property,…

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, United Rentals Australia Pty Ltd, sought damages in the ACT Supreme Court from the respondent, Pacific Formwork (Aust), for the alleged unlawful retention of hire equipment. The equipment in question consisted of scaffolding, and the applicant claimed that the respondent's retention of the equipment constituted trespass, conversion, or detinue. The dispute arose from a hire agreement under which the respondent had hired the equipment, but subsequently failed to return it as required.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the costs claimed by the applicant for retrieving the equipment from the respondent's possession were reasonable, and thus recoverable under the Uncollected Goods Act 1996 (ACT). The court had to determine whether the costs incurred by the applicant were proportionate and reasonable, taking into account the nature and value of the equipment, the circumstances in which it was retained, and any other relevant factors.

In its judgment, the court held that the applicant's costs for retrieving the equipment were reasonable and recoverable. The court found that the costs were proportionate to the value of the equipment and the circumstances of the case. The court also noted that the respondent had no valid defence to the applicant's claim, and that the hire agreement was binding. The court concluded that the applicant was entitled to recover the costs of retrieving the equipment, as well as damages for the respondent's unlawful retention of the equipment.

The court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant's costs of retrieving the equipment, as well as damages for the unlawful retention. The court also ordered the respondent to pay interest on the amount owed to the applicant, and costs of the proceeding. The court's decision provides clarity on the applicability of the Uncollected Goods Act 1996 (ACT) to claims for damages in the torts of trespass, conversion, or detinue, and the circumstances in which costs incurred in retrieving retained equipment are recoverable.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established