Hill & Anor v Reglon Pty Limited [2007] NSWCA 295

Appeal Outcome: Special leave refused with costs by the High Court - 13 June 2008

New South Wales Court of Appeal

CITATION: Hill & Anor v Reglon Pty Limited [2007] NSWCA 295

HEARING DATE(S): 29 August 2007

JUDGMENT DATE: 24 October 2007

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 1; Beazley JA at 2; Ipp JA at 157

DECISION: 1. The appeal is dismissed with costs; 2. The Amended Notice of Cross-Appeal is allowed in part, with costs; 3. The parties, within seven days, are to bring in short minutes of order to accord with these reasons.

CATCHWORDS: BAILMENT – bailment created by contract – whether common law principles continue to apply depends upon construction of contract – common law rights excluded only where clearest terms used – bailment contract provided remedies were not exclusive but cumulative to remedies existing at law – not necessary for bailor to accept repudiation for the right of possession to revert to bailor - BAILMENT – goods of bailor interchangeable with goods of third party so as to be indistinguishable – where goods mixed by accident owners become owners in common of the mixed property – whether goods were mixed - BAILMENT – purpose of bailment was for on-hire of goods – bailor entitled to immediate possession where bailee performs act repugnant to or inconsistent with terms of bailment – whether action of bailee providing goods to third party for on-hire was repugnant to bailment - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – cause of action accrued after proceedings commenced – Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) s 64 allows document to be amended to substitute cause of action that accrues after proceedings commenced - TORTS – conversion – damages of loss for conversion ordinarily full value of thing converted - TORTS – conversion – goods converted where they are dealt with inconsistently with owner's rights with intention of denying owner's rights or asserting right inconsistent with them – no requirement that goods must be destroyed or sold in a market overt – whether licence agreement vesting exclusive control over goods with third party was inconsistent with bailor's right to immediate possession