Brendas v Genter [2018] NSWCA 8

Brendas v Genter [2018] NSWCA 8

The appellants failed to prove any right, title or interest in the Caterpillar machines, including any immediate right to possession. The respondent's alleged admissions or acquiescence were admissible but, in context, had no probative force because there was no evidence that the respondent had independent knowledge or a reliable source of knowledge about the appellants' rights, and later evidence suggested he had no such knowledge. The respondent's failure to give evidence did not permit an inference that the appellants had an immediate right to possession. There was also no evidentiary basis to conclude that the second appellant had any right, title or interest in the machines.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the District Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['admissions' 'probative Value' 'jones V Dunkel Inference' 'conversion' 'detinue' 'immediate Right to Possession' 'machinery Owned by Company in Administration']
['evidence' 'personal Property'] ['admissions' 'probative Value' 'jones V Dunkel Inference' 'conversion' 'detinue' 'immediate Right to Possession' 'machinery Owned by Company in Administration']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the District Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondent had made an admission that the appellants were entitled to immediate possession of the Caterpillar machines.' "Whether any admission by the respondent was probative of the appellants' immediate right to possession." "Whether an inference should be drawn from the respondent's failure to give evidence at trial." 'Whether the appellants established title to sue in conversion and detinue by proving an immediate right to possession of the machines, bucket and hammer.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants failed to prove any right, title or interest in the Caterpillar machines, including any immediate right to possession. The respondent's alleged admissions or acquiescence were admissible but, in context, had no probative force because there was no evidence that the respondent had independent knowledge or a reliable source of knowledge about the appellants' rights, and later evidence suggested he had no such knowledge. The respondent's failure to give evidence did not permit an inference that the appellants had an immediate right to possession. There was also no evidentiary basis to conclude that the second appellant had any right, title or interest in the machines.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed;' "Appellants to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal as agreed or assessed."]