WHITE-v- SPIERS EARTHWORKS PTY LTD [2014] WASC 139

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2014] WASC 139
Case No:	CIV:2245/2013	Heard:	18 & 20 SEPTEMBER, 2 OCTOBER 2013
Coram:	LE MIERE J	Delivered:	16/04/14
No of pages:	16	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application granted
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	HAYDEN LEIGH WHITE AND DAMIAN JOHN TEMPLETON IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS JOINT AND SEVERAL RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS OF BEM EQUIPMENT PTY LTD (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED) (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) SPIERS EARTHWORKS PTY LTD IN ITS OWN RIGHT AND AS TRUSTEE FOR THE SPIERS ASSET TRUST BRADLEY STEPHEN SPIERS HELEN MARGARET SPIERS
Catchwords:	Hire agreement Hirer appointed administrators Whether defendants' interest in hire assets vested in hirer company Whether hirer company is entitled to possession of hire assets and holds them subject to charge Whether Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) s 267 applies Specified event Voluntary administrators appointed Defendants' interest is in substance a security interest Hire purchase agreement is a PPS lease Perfection of security interest Transitional arrangements for perfecting security interests No unjust acquisition of property for purposes of Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) s 252B
Legislation:	Chattel Securities Act 1987 (WA), s 14 Constitution 1901 (Cth), s 51(xxxi) Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 436A Hire-Purchase Act 1959 (WA) Personal Property Securities (Consequential Repeals and Amendments) Act 2011 (Cth) Personal Property Securities (Corporations and other Amendments) Act 2010 (Cth) Personal Property Security Act 2009 (Cth), s 2, s 10, s 12, s 13, s 21, s 252B, s 261, s 267, s 307, s 308, s 310, s 322, s 330, s 332 Personal Property Security Regulations 2010 (Cth), reg 9.2 Road Traffic Act 1974 (Cth)
Case References:	Australian Tape Manufacturers Association Ltd v The Commonwealth (1993) 176 CLR 480 Georgiadis v Australian and Overseas Telecommunications Corporation (1994) 179 CLR 297 Mutual Pools & Staff Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth (1994) 179 CLR 155

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : WHITE-v- SPIERS EARTHWORKS PTY LTD [2014] WASC 139 CORAM : LE MIERE J HEARD : 18 & 20 SEPTEMBER, 2 OCTOBER 2013 DELIVERED : 16 APRIL 2014 FILE NO/S : CIV 2245 of 2013 MATTER : BEM Equipment Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) BETWEEN : HAYDEN LEIGH WHITE AND DAMIAN JOHN TEMPLETON IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS JOINT AND SEVERAL RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS OF BEM EQUIPMENT PTY LTD (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED) (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED)

Plaintiffs

AND

SPIERS EARTHWORKS PTY LTD IN ITS OWN RIGHT AND AS TRUSTEE FOR THE SPIERS ASSET TRUST

First Defendant

BRADLEY STEPHEN SPIERS

HELEN MARGARET SPIERS

Second Defendants

Catchwords:

Hire agreement - Hirer appointed administrators - Whether defendants' interest in hire assets vested in hirer company - Whether hirer company is entitled to possession of hire assets and holds them subject to charge

Whether Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) s 267 applies - Specified event - Voluntary administrators appointed - Defendants' interest is in substance a security interest - Hire purchase agreement is…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read White v Spiers Earthworks Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] WASC 139
Decision Date: 16 APRIL 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of White v Spiers Earthworks Pty Ltd was heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland, involving a dispute between a hirer and a hirer company over the possession and rights to hire assets. The defendants, Spiers Earthworks Pty Ltd, had entered into a hire agreement for certain assets. Upon appointing administrators, the hirer sought to determine whether the defendants' interest in the hire assets had vested in the hirer company, and if the hirer company was entitled to possession of the hire assets, subject to a charge.

The court was tasked with resolving several key legal issues. These included whether the defendants' interest in the hire assets constituted a security interest under the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth), and if so, whether the hire purchase agreement should be treated as a Personal Property Securities Act lease. The court also had to determine if section 267 of the Act applied in light of the voluntary appointment of administrators and whether the transitional arrangements for perfecting security interests were met. Furthermore, the court needed to assess whether the hirer company's acquisition of the assets was unjust under section 252B of the Act.

The court found that the defendants' interest in the hire assets was in substance a security interest, and thus the hire purchase agreement should be treated as a Personal Property Securities Act lease. The transitional arrangements for perfecting security interests were also satisfied, and there was no unjust acquisition of property by the hirer company. Consequently, the hirer company was entitled to possession of the hire assets and held them subject to the charge. The application was granted, affirming the hirer company's rights to the assets in question.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application granted

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.