Volvo Finance Australia Pty Ltd v Waterfront Enterprises Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2)

Volvo Finance Australia Pty Ltd took legal action against Waterfront Enterprises Pty Ltd, which was in liquidation, over alleged conversion and detinue. The plaintiffs sought damages for the defendant's refusal to deliver vehicles until payment was made directly to the defendant. The primary issue before the court was whether the plaintiffs had made a valid demand for the return of the vehicles and, if so, whether this demand was sufficient to establish the tort of conversion. Additionally, the court needed to determine the appropriate measure of damages for the plaintiffs' claims of conversion and detinue.

The court examined whether the plaintiffs had made a demand for the return of the vehicles and found that the demand was valid and sufficient. The court noted that the demand was made in writing and was addressed to the defendant, specifying the vehicles in question and requesting their immediate return. The court held that the demand satisfied the requirements for establishing the tort of conversion, as it was a clear and unequivocal request for the return of the property. The court also considered the plaintiffs' claim for detinue and found that the plaintiffs were entitled to damages for the wrongful detention of the vehicles. The court awarded damages based on the value of the vehicles at the time of the demand, taking into account the defendant's refusal to deliver them until payment was made directly to the defendant. Furthermore, the court considered the plaintiffs' claim regarding the defendant's assertion of a specific lien over the vehicles, which the court found to be invalid. The court held that the defendant did not have the right to retain the vehicles as a specific lienholder, as the plaintiffs had already perfected their security interest in the vehicles through registration.

The court ordered Waterfront Enterprises Pty Ltd to pay Volvo Finance Australia Pty Ltd damages for the torts of conversion and detinue, as well as an amount representing the invalid assertion of a specific lien. The court awarded damages based on the value of the vehicles at the time of the demand, and further ordered the defendant to deliver the vehicles to the plaintiffs or their nominee. The court also declared that the defendant had no valid specific lien over the vehicles, and that the plaintiffs' security interest in the vehicles was superior.