Penfolds Wines Pty Ltd v Elliott [1946] HCA 46

ON 25 NOVEMBER 1946, the High Court of Australia delivered Penfolds Wines Pty Ltd v Elliott [1946] HCA 46; (1946) 74 CLR 204 (25 November 1946)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1946/46.html

Mr Elliott used of Penfolds’ empty wine bottles to carry other wine.

Dixon J (at 229) said:

“But nothing in the course pursued by the respondent in receiving and filling bottles and returning them could possibly amount to the tort of conversion. The essence of conversion is a dealing with a chattel in a manner repugnant to the immediate right of possession of the person who has the property or special property in the chattel. It may take the form of a disposal of the goods by way of sale, or pledge or other intended transfer of an interest followed by delivery, of the destruction or change of the nature or character of the thing, as for example, pouring water into wine or cutting the seals from a deed, or of an appropriation evidenced by refusal to deliver or other denial of title. But damage to the chattel is not conversion, nor is use, nor is a transfer of possession otherwise than for the purpose of affecting the immediate right to possession, nor is it always conversion to lose the goods beyond hope of recovery. An intent to do that which would deprive “the true owner” of his immediate right to possession or impair it may be said to form the essential ground of the tort.”

The tort of conversion generally concerns a defendant’s intentional dealing with goods in a manner inconsistent with or repugnant to the plaintiff’s ownership of the goods: per Latham CJ at 217 – 221, Dixon J (Starke J agreeing) at 228 – 230, McTiernan J at 234 – 235 and Williams J at 239 – 244.

An act repugnant or inconsistent to the terms of the bailment, or consistent only to treat the goods as his or her own, terminates the bailment resulting in possession revesting to the owner who can sue the bailee in trover: per Latham CJ at pp 214 and 217-8, Dixon J at p 227, McTiernan J at p 233 and Williams J at pp 241-2.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Automatic Fire Sprinklers Pty Ltd v Watson [1946] HCA 25

Automatic Fire Sprinklers Pty Ltd v Watson [1946] HCA 25; (1946) 72 CLR 435 (23 August 1946).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/72clr435.html

The dismissal of an employee terminates the employment relationship but not the contract of employment. An employer may unilaterally dismiss an employee but if the employee is wrongfully dismissed, he or she may elect to treat the contract of employment as terminated and sue for the damage suffered by the being deprived of his or her right to provide their services in return for earnings.

The employee does not have the right to insist on continuous employment, nor can he or she sue for wages if the service had not been provided. The employees only option is to treat the employer’s conduct as a repudiation and on that basis terminate the contract and sue for damages for wrongful dismissal.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 (NSW)

ON THIS DAY in 1946, the NSW Parliament enacted the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/lrpa1946404

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

Nuremberg Trials

ON 20 NOVEMBER 1945, the Nuremberg Trials began.

<p style=”text-align: center;”><a href=”http://legalhelpdesklawyers.com.au”><img class=”alignnone  wp-image-8046″ src=”https://legalhelpdesklawyers.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/button-logo-41.jpg?w=150&#8243; alt=”Lawyers” width=”50″ height=”50″ /></a></p>
<p style=”text-align: center;”>1300 00 2088</p>

Storie v Storie [1945] HCA 56

Storie v Storie [1945] HCA 56; (1945) 80 CLR 597 (27 July 1945).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1945/56.html

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1944 (NSW)

ON 8 DECEMBER 1944, the NSW Parliament enacted the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1944.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/lrpa1944404

<p style=”text-align:center;”><a href=”http://legalhelpdesklawyers.com.au”><img class=”alignnone  wp-image-8046″ src=”https://legalhelpdesklawyers.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/button-logo-41.jpg?w=150&#8243; alt=”Lawyers” width=”50″ height=”50″ /></a></p>
<p style=”text-align:center;”>Sydney, Australia</p>
<p style=”text-align:center;”>1300 00 2088</p>

Federal Commissioner of Taxation v J Walter Thompson (Australia) Pty Ltd [1944] HCA 23

Federal Commissioner of Taxation v J Walter Thompson (Australia) Pty Ltd [1944] HCA 23; (1944) 69 CLR 227 (5 September 1944).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/69clr227.html

The distinction between employer and contractor is “in the case of a servant the employee has power, not only to direct what work the servant is to do, but also to direct the manner in which the work is done” per Latham J at 231.

Lawyers

1300 00 2088

Fairweather v Fairweather [1944] HCA 11

ON 11 MAY 1944, the High Court of Australia delivered Fairweather v Fairweather [1944] HCA 11; (1944) 69 CLR 121 (11 May 1944)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/69clr121.html

Lawyers

1300 00 2088

Attorney-General v Trustees of the National Art Gallery of NSW (1945) 62 WN (NSW) 212

ON 8 NOVEMBER 1943, Justice Roper of the Supreme Court of NSW in Attorney-General v Trustees of the National Art Gallery of NSW (1945) 62 WN (NSW), 212, dismissed a challenge to William Dobell receiving the Archibald Prize for his portrait of fellow artist Joshua Smith.

http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/speeches/former-justices/kirbyj/kirbyj_28mar06.pdf

Lawyers

1300 00 2088

 

White v Australian and New Zealand Theatres Limited [1943] HCA 6

White v Australian and New Zealand Theatres Limited [1943] HCA 6; (1943) 67 CLR 266 (29 April 1943).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/67clr266.html

Lawyers

1300 00 2088

Mosman Solicitor & Notary