NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Court of Appeal
CITATION : Montedeen Pty Limited v Rossfield Nominees (ACT) Pty Limited [2000] NSWCA 112 FILE NUMBER(S) : CA 40253/98 HEARING DATE(S) : 15/04/2000 JUDGMENT DATE : 5 May 2000
PARTIES : Montedeen Pty Limited Rossfield Nominees (ACT) Pty Limited JUDGMENT OF : Sheller JA at 1; Powell JA at 2; Beazley JA at 3
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : Supreme Court - Equity Division LOWER COURT 1327/97 FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT Santow J JUDICIAL OFFICER :
Appellant: G Sirtes COUNSEL : Respondent: B Debuse Appellant: Kempson & Co (Melbourne) by their city agents Forshaw Neill SOLICITORS : Respondent: Sullivans CATCHWORDS : Competing interests in registrable goods - Bona fide purchaser for value without notice - Nemo dat rule Road Safety Act 1986 (Vic) LEGISLATION CITED : Chattel Securities Act 1987 (Vic) Goods Act 1958 (Vic) CASES CITED: Registrar, Security Interests v Psarros (1989) 51 SASR 318 DECISION : Appeal allowed
THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF APPEAL
CA 40253/98 CL 47/96
SHELLER JA POWELL JA BEAZLEY JA
Friday, 5 May 2000
MONTEDEEN PTY LIMITED t/as DELTA CAR AND TRUCK RENTAL v ROSSFIELD NOMINEES (ACT) PTY LIMITED
FACTS
Capital was a franchisee of one of the appellant's car and truck hire businesses. The respondent, a car financier, leased five vehicles to Capital but permitted Capital to register the vehicles in Victoria as owner. Capital had possession of the vehicles. Capital purported to sell the vehicles to the appellant.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate