IRWIN v MULES [2020] NZHC 748

IRWIN v MULES [2020] NZHC 748

The High Court allowed the appeal in part: conversion is actionable per se so loss is not a required element; the deed between Mr Alexander and the appellant constituted a valid assignment of the causes of action (there was a genuine commercial interest and no unlawful trafficking in litigation); accordingly both...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] NZHC 748
Parties
Appellant: Brett Raymond Irwin; First Respondent: Phillipa Jane Mules; Second Respondent: Ross Fitches
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
20 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal From District Court (general Appeal/rehearing) Under the District Court Act 2016 / High Court Hearing and Judgment on Appeal (rehearing)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part: judgment entered for appellant on liability (conversion and detinue as against first respondent); damages and related issues remitted to the District Court; costs reserved with indicative directions
Legal Topics
Conversion, Detinue, Assignment of Causes of Action, Validity of Registered Security Interests, Repossession, Damages, Jurisdictional Limits Under PPSA
Tort Property Personal Property Securities Civil Procedure Family Law Conversion Detinue Assignment of Causes of Action +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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brett Raymond Irwin

Appellant

Phillipa Jane Mules

First Respondent

Ross Fitches

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From District Court (general Appeal/rehearing) Under the District Court Act 2016 / High Court Hearing and Judgment on Appeal (rehearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether loss is an element of the tort of conversion
  2. 2 Whether the causes of action of a prior owner were validly assigned to the appellant
  3. 3 Effect of removal of registered security interests under s 162 of the Personal Property Securities Act 1999 and whether removal rendered interests void ab initio

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court allowed the appeal in part: conversion is actionable per se so loss is not a required element; the deed between Mr Alexander and the appellant constituted a valid assignment of the causes of action (there was a genuine commercial interest and no unlawful trafficking in litigation); accordingly both respondents are liable in conversion (and the first respondent also in detinue for continued retention); unresolved questions about the validity of the second registered security interest and quantum of damages must be remitted to the District Court.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part: judgment entered for appellant on liability (conversion and detinue as against first respondent); damages and related issues remitted to the District Court; costs reserved with indicative directions

Orders

  • Judgment entered for Brett Raymond Irwin: both respondents liable in conversion; Phillipa Jane Mules also liable in detinue from date of demand for return of the vehicle
  • Questions of damages and validity of the second registered security interest remitted to the District Court for determination