Georges v Tribastoni [2011] NSWDC 36

Georges v Tribastoni [2011] NSWDC 36

The plaintiff delivered the Ferrari to the third defendant on 12 October 2009 for the limited purpose of showing it to prospective buyers and did not authorise him to sell without referring back on price. Omar's role in the sale was on the instructions of, or as agent or associate of, the third defendant, not on the plaintiff's authority, and the third defendant wrongfully failed to return the Ferrari after demand. The plaintiff also never authorised the first defendant to prepare the 13 October 2009 invoice; by booking out the car on the say so of others and enabling its disposal to Haberfield Classic and Sports Cars, the first defendant consciously acted in a manner repugnant to the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Tort Claim for Conversion and Detinue / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff against the first and third defendants; proceedings against the second defendant dismissed with no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['conversion' 'detinue' 'bailment' 'unauthorised Sale of Motor Vehicle' 'damages' 'costs']
['tort'] ['conversion' 'detinue' 'bailment' 'unauthorised Sale of Motor Vehicle' 'damages' 'costs']

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 Tort Claim for Conversion and Detinue / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the third defendant had possession of the Ferrari and sold or caused it to be sold without the plaintiff's authority." 'Whether the third defendant wrongfully failed to return the Ferrari after demand.' "Whether the first defendant, by causing documentation to be issued to facilitate sale and transfer of registration, acted without the plaintiff's authority and converted the Ferrari." 'What the value of the Ferrari was at the date of conversion and the amount of damages and interest payable.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff delivered the Ferrari to the third defendant on 12 October 2009 for the limited purpose of showing it to prospective buyers and did not authorise him to sell without referring back on price. Omar's role in the sale was on the instructions of, or as agent or associate of, the third defendant, not on the plaintiff's authority, and the third defendant wrongfully failed to return the Ferrari after demand. The plaintiff also never authorised the first defendant to prepare the 13 October 2009 invoice; by booking out the car on the say so of others and enabling its disposal to Haberfield Classic and Sports Cars, the first defendant consciously acted in a manner repugnant to the...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff against the first and third defendants; proceedings against the second defendant dismissed with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the amount of $201,895.88.' 'Judgment for the plaintiff against the third defendant in the amount of $201,895.88.' 'The proceedings against the second defendant are dismissed, with no order as to costs.' "The first defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs,...