Penfolds Wines Pty Ltd v Elliott [1946] HCA 46

Penfolds Wines Pty Ltd v Elliott [1946] HCA 46

By majority (Starke, Dixon, McTiernan JJ), the appeal was dismissed on the basis that the evidence showed at most rare and casual handling of the appellant's bottles by the respondent, which did not amount to systematic interference or a substantial risk of ongoing injury, and thus did not warrant equitable relief by way of injunction; the appellant should be left to pursue any common law remedies. By Dixon J, there was no common law tort of trespass or conversion because the acts proved did not involve a wrongful interference with the appellant’s possession or property, as the respondent acted on bottles lawfully in his possession via customer delivery, and his actions were not...

Parties
Plaintiff: Penfolds Wines Limited; Defendant/respondent: James Peter Elliott
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Appellate Decision by the High Court of Australia on an Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales (full Court)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed by majority of the High Court (Starke, Dixon, McTiernan JJ), with Latham C.J. and Williams J. dissenting.
Legal Topics
Trespass to Goods, Conversion, Bailment, Injunction, Common Law Remedies, Estoppel, Trade Usage, Equitable Relief
Tort Law Personal Property Law Equity Trespass to Goods Conversion Bailment Injunction Common Law Remedies +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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Penfolds Wines Limited

Plaintiff

James Peter Elliott

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Appellate Decision by the High Court of Australia on an Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales (full Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's use of the appellant's branded bottles for wine not produced by the appellant constituted trespass to goods or conversion.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant is entitled to an injunction restraining such use of its bottles by the respondent.
  3. 3 What remedies are available at common law or in equity for such acts.

Ratio Decidendi

By majority (Starke, Dixon, McTiernan JJ), the appeal was dismissed on the basis that the evidence showed at most rare and casual handling of the appellant's bottles by the respondent, which did not amount to systematic interference or a substantial risk of ongoing injury, and thus did not warrant equitable relief by way of injunction; the appellant should be left to pursue any common law remedies. By Dixon J, there was no common law tort of trespass or conversion because the acts proved did not involve a wrongful interference with the appellant’s possession or property, as the respondent acted on bottles lawfully in his possession via customer delivery, and his actions were not...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed by majority of the High Court (Starke, Dixon, McTiernan JJ), with Latham C.J. and Williams J. dissenting.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.