Motor Credits (Hire Finance) Ltd v Pacific Motor Auctions Pty Ltd [1963] HCA 27

High Court of Australia McTiernan, Taylor and Owen JJ. Motor Credits (Hire Finance) Ltd v Pacific Motor Auctions Pty Ltd [1963] HCA 27

ORDER Appeal allowed with costs. Verdict and judgment in favour of defendant on plaintiff's claim set aside and action remitted to Supreme Court for assessment of damages on that claim. Cross appeal dismissed with costs.

Cur. adv. vult.

The following written judgments were delivered:—

1963 Aug. 8 McTiernan J.

In this case I agree with the judgment of Walsh J. and the findings of fact and decisions of law on which it is based. I do not think it is necessary to add anything to what the learned judge has said. Accordingly, I would dismiss the appeal and cross-appeal.

Taylor J.

In the commercial cause out of which this appeal arises the appellant sued the respondent for the return of twenty second-hand motor vehicles which it alleged had been wrongfully detained by the respondent. At the trial the appellant abandoned its claim with respect to four of the vehicles and, as an alternative to the return of the remaining sixteen, it claimed to recover their value and damages for detention.

The motor vehicles in question had never been in the possession of the appellant but the points of claim filed by it in the action show briefly how the claim arose. It was alleged that on 2nd November 1960 and at all material times the motor vehicles were the absolute property of the plaintiff and that, on that date, they were in the possession of a company, Motordom Pty. Limited (hereinafter referred to as Motordom) as bailee for the plaintiff and not otherwise. It was further alleged that on that date Motordom had no authority to sell the vehicles but that, nevertheless, it did, without any such authority, purport to sell them to the defendant whereupon the latter took possession of them. Subsequently the appellant made a demand for the return of the vehicles but the demand was not complied with. In answer to the claim the respondent denied the appellant's title to the vehicles and also denied Motordom's alleged lack of authority to make the sale in question. Additionally, the respondent alleged, in effect, that the appellant had held out and represented Motordom as the owner of the vehicles or as a person having full power and authority to sell them to a purchaser and that the respondent dealt with Motordom on the faith of such representation. Other subsidiary matters were raised by way of defence and to these reference will presently be made.