Stoker v Picken [2012] FCA 1315

Stoker v Picken [2012] FCA 1315

The respondent's conduct—including attempting sale under the Uncollected Goods Act 1967 (Qld), claiming storage charges, or having the vessel in custody via agents—did not amount to abandonment or extinguishment of the possessory lien so long as the appellant was adequately informed to tender the true sum due. No damages for detinue or conversion were payable. There was no basis to reduce quantum meruit for work done by subcontractor absent a relevant implied term or proven loss. The magistrate did not err in assessing costs thrown away.

Parties
Appellant: Brian James Stoker; Respondent: Mark Anthony Picken
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Storage Charges and Lien Loss, Abandonment of Lien, Quantum Meruit, Contract for Repair Services, Vicarious Performance of Contract, Damages for Detinue or Conversion, Admissibility of Opinion Evidence, Costs Assessment
Lien Bailment Contracts Storage Charges and Lien Loss Abandonment of Lien Quantum Meruit Contract for Repair Services Vicarious Performance of Contract +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brian James Stoker

Appellant

Mark Anthony Picken

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent had relinquished his possessory lien over the vessel by conduct such as attempting sale, charging storage, or delivering vessel to third parties
  2. 2 Whether the storage charge claim affected the right to lien
  3. 3 Whether damages were payable in detinue or conversion

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent's conduct—including attempting sale under the Uncollected Goods Act 1967 (Qld), claiming storage charges, or having the vessel in custody via agents—did not amount to abandonment or extinguishment of the possessory lien so long as the appellant was adequately informed to tender the true sum due. No damages for detinue or conversion were payable. There was no basis to reduce quantum meruit for work done by subcontractor absent a relevant implied term or proven loss. The magistrate did not err in assessing costs thrown away.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal be dismissed.
  • The respondent have liberty to apply within seven days for any order concerning costs or expenses which he may have incurred in connection with these proceedings.