Phonsavatdy v. Ruggles Towing Ltd.

Phonsavatdy v. Ruggles Towing Ltd.

Because the claimant chose to have the vehicle towed to the defendant's yard (i.e. goods were deposited by the owner or by his authority), s.4's special notice rule for goods deposited by another did not apply; the defendant validly claimed and is entitled to recover the contracted towing and storage charges, and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2009 NSSM 4
Parties
Claimant: Phailath Phonsavatdy; Defendant: Ruggles Towing Limited
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 January 2009
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Court Recovery of Vehicle and Towing/storage Fees / Decision Rendered After Hearing (trial Level/adjudicator)
Outcome
Claim dismissed; counterclaim allowed; judgment for defendant in amount $5,295.23; vehicle may be redeemed on satisfaction of judgment or auctioned if unsatisfied.
Legal Topics
Warehouseman's Lien, Storage Charges, Towing Fees, Redemption of Goods, Auction Under Warehousemen's Lien Act, Notice Requirements, Owner's Responsibility
Source Language
english
Property Law Contract Law Statutory Interpretation Motor Vehicle/traffic Law Municipal Law Warehouseman's Lien Storage Charges Towing Fees +4 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Phailath Phonsavatdy

Claimant

Ruggles Towing Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Court Recovery of Vehicle and Towing/storage Fees / Decision Rendered After Hearing (trial Level/adjudicator)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.4 Warehousemen's Lien Act notice requirement voids lien where owner elected towing to commercial yard
  2. 2 Whether towing company entitled to recover contracted storage and towing fees
  3. 3 Whether claimant's failure to inquire or redeem bars challenge to lien

Ratio Decidendi

Because the claimant chose to have the vehicle towed to the defendant's yard (i.e. goods were deposited by the owner or by his authority), s.4's special notice rule for goods deposited by another did not apply; the defendant validly claimed and is entitled to recover the contracted towing and storage charges, and may auction the vehicle if the judgment is not satisfied.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; counterclaim allowed; judgment for defendant in amount $5,295.23; vehicle may be redeemed on satisfaction of judgment or auctioned if unsatisfied.

Orders

  • Claim dismissed.
  • Counterclaim allowed and judgment entered for defendant in the amount of $5,295.23.