24 Jul 2023
Application dismissed because applicant failed to establish a genuine and triable cross-claim approaching or equalling the judgment debt; alleged tort claims were speculative, of limited and uncertain quantum, and the appeal was not sufficiently progressed to justify setting aside the bankruptcy notice.
16 May 2023
The Court held Wylie Properties did not establish that its claim was a liquidated demand under r15.7 because there was no clear contractual assignment or basis to fix a precise reasonable price for post-March 2015 storage; the bailment claim lacked sufficient evidence of a contractual bailment for reward or of circumstances invoking indemnity for a gratuitous bailment. Accordingly default judgment was inappropriate under r15.9. Separate discretion under r5.45 was exercised to order security for costs because credible evidence (voluntary bankruptcy, refusal to disclose finances, prior procedur…
5 Aug 2021
The Court held that the mortgagees, having a possession order, were entitled to remove and store the plaintiffs' chattels as involuntary bailees (following Cribb), and Crown as sub‑bailee was entitled to summary judgment because it merely stored goods under mortgagee instructions and did not participate in destruction; however the mortgagees failed to establish on summary judgment that they were entitled to destroy the goods — destruction raises distinct legal issues (limited common law authority, necessity narrowly construed and owner intent questions) requiring a full trial to resolve.
7 Jul 2017
The Court held that under s 139(1)(c) the plaintiff was a mortgagee in possession from the date of its possession application; the plaintiff revoked permission for the chattels to remain by correspondence and service of the possession order and gave reasonable notice; the defendants' chattels therefore constituted trespass and, as involuntary bailee, the plaintiff was entitled to recover reasonable packing, removal, storage and insurance costs. Judgment awarded to plaintiff for $51,586.40 plus interest and costs on a 2B basis.
3 May 2012
The disputed transaction was between companies (the plaintiff and the second defendant) not between spouses or between spouses and third parties; company assets are distinct from shareholders' relationship property; s 4 of the PRA does not engage and does not transfer exclusive jurisdiction to the Family Court over tort/equitable claims by a company for its assets; therefore the High Court has jurisdiction and the defendants' appearance objecting to jurisdiction was set aside.
1 Nov 2010
HSBC, as mortgagee in possession entitled to exclusive possession, gave reasonable notice and sought removal; defendants' prolonged inaction and revocation of permission rendered the non‑Balenia chattels trespasses and effectively abandoned; accordingly HSBC may permit specified defendants to remove the chattels and, if not removed within 20 working days, may treat them as abandoned and dispose of them without accounting; an advance blanket exoneration from liability was refused.
7 Oct 2010
The appeal was dismissed because the High Court found the District Court Judge had rational, open-to-the-judge grounds to reject the appellant's version, properly gave no weight to the detective's lay observations, and lawfully awarded general damages for distress and exemplary damages for an intentional trespass to goods.
21 Jul 2010
Plaintiffs' claim was hopeless and abandoned at trial; defendants had pointed out inadequacies prior to trial; plaintiffs acted unreasonably in continuing; accordingly an uplift of 50% on 2B costs was justified for each defendant, with specified 2B figures and total awards for each defendant.
1 Oct 2007
The Court found the Council's legal right to the Taylorville-Blackball Road was established by implied dedication and statutory vesting, and Westpower's transmission line qualified as existing works lawfully installed and protected by the Electricity Act; given the defendant's prior deliberate destabilisation of a pole and ongoing threats, there was a real risk of future interference, so a permanent quia timet injunction restraining excavation or withdrawal of surface support was warranted.