Roder Zelt-und Hallenkonstruktionen gmbh v Rosedown Park Pty Ltd & Anor [1995] FCA 275

Roder Zelt-und Hallenkonstruktionen gmbh v Rosedown Park Pty Ltd & Anor [1995] FCA 275

There was a valid retention of title clause in favour of Roder. Under Australian law, property in the goods remained with Roder until payment in full. The administrator, upon the execution of the Deed of Company Arrangement, had no further statutory protection for withholding the goods, and both Rosedown and Mr Eustace are liable in conversion for continuing to detain the goods from Roder. Roder’s rights to recover the goods and/or damages depend on obtaining further leave of the Court under s.444E; the matter is to be relisted for assessment of relief, but Roder is entitled in principle to delivery of the goods and/or damages (to be assessed).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 April 1995
Procedural Posture
Sale of Goods / Corporate Insolvency Proceeding / Post Trial; Judgment on Liability and Directions for Assessment of Damages/relief, Matter Stood Over for Further Consideration
Outcome
Matter stood over for further consideration; entitlement to relief in principle established, assessment of damages and need for further leave reserved to further hearing.
Legal Topics
['retention of Title' 'administration of Company' 'conversion' 'international Sale of Goods' 'deeds of Company Arrangement']
['commercial Law' 'insolvency Law' 'contracts'] ['retention of Title' 'administration of Company' 'conversion' 'international Sale of Goods' 'deeds of Company Arrangement']

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

Sale of Goods / Corporate Insolvency Proceeding / Post Trial; Judgment on Liability and Directions for Assessment of Damages/relief, Matter Stood Over for Further Consideration

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the contract included a valid retention of title clause;' 'Whether the administrator of the purchaser (Rosedown) incurred liability for refusing to deliver up the goods;' 'Whether, after the Deed of Company Arrangement was executed, leave was required to proceed for recovery of the goods;' 'Whether Rosedown and the administrator were liable in conversion for retaining the goods after execution of the Deed.']

Ratio Decidendi

There was a valid retention of title clause in favour of Roder. Under Australian law, property in the goods remained with Roder until payment in full. The administrator, upon the execution of the Deed of Company Arrangement, had no further statutory protection for withholding the goods, and both Rosedown and Mr Eustace are liable in conversion for continuing to detain the goods from Roder. Roder’s rights to recover the goods and/or damages depend on obtaining further leave of the Court under s.444E; the matter is to be relisted for assessment of relief, but Roder is entitled in principle to delivery of the goods and/or damages (to be assessed).

Court Disposition

Matter stood over for further consideration; entitlement to relief in principle established, assessment of damages and need for further leave reserved to further hearing.

Orders

  • ['The matter be relisted on a date to be fixed for further consideration.']