Topic 3 - Interference with Goods PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Topic 3 - Interference with Goods PDF

Description

Interference to Goods 





Trespass to goods defined as wrongful and direct interference with goods that are in possession of another. It also protects possession of his property, physical condition of his property and maintain and protect his right to non- interference of his property. Tresspass to Goods o Element of the tort  Mental state of the defendant  Pl must prove that there is an intention of df deals with goods.  National Cool Board v Evans  Df’s employees damaged the p’s electric cable during excava on work.  Held: no trespass as the act is unintentional.  Wilson v Lombank  Df labouring under a mistake, took the pl’s car from workshop, believing that I was his car.  Held: it is trespass since the df has intention on to take the car.  Interference  Direct act of the df and contact with the pl’s good.  Physical and interference and voluntarily done by the df.  Interference must be physical in nature.  Kirk v Gregory  Df moved ring of a deceased person to a room without prior consent of the family members. This act constitutes trespass and there is no reasonable explanation by the defendant.  Sin Gee Seng v Wai Wah Trading & Wilson v New Brighton Panel Beaters Ltd  The removal of goods from one place to another constitutes physical interference, which may justified only on the ground that it is reasonable and necessary to do.  Haji Awalludin v Majlis Perbandaran Kuantan  Df went to pl’s house and removed a caseate recorder and tv prior to a local statute because of the pl has arrears of payments for his house. No trespass since the act is under lawful authority of statue to confiscate items of pl and returning the items after payments are done.

 A pls sues in trespass to goods need not prove damage as it is not necessary to est a tort which is actionable per se.  GWK Ltd v Dunlop Rubber Co Ltd  Removing a tyre from car.  Heydon v Smith  Cutting and removing trees. oPerson who may claim  Right to claim on person who has possession.  Sajan Singh v Sandara Ali  Person who have physical control over the goods who is deemed to have possession of fact.  Mears v London & South Western Ry  The goods are damaged, the owner out of possession may sue on account that his reversionary interest on the goods is affected.  Penfold Wines v Elliot  The pl who have wine on their own and the bottles has their name printed on.  The df sold wines in bulk and happened have some wines bottle from pl’s shop  The df’s sue and court denied an injunction and said that no trespass had occurred as the pl didn’t have possession in fact of the bottles. oExceptions  Who doesn’t have possession in fact, but still may claim in trespass.  A trustee, acting on behalf of a beneficiary  An executor or administrator take action for trespass to goods of deceased after his death or before probate is granted to the executor or before the administrator takes out letters of admin.  A person with franchise or a person who has right to take wreck or treasure trove. Conversion o Dealing with goods in manner inconsistent with the rights of the true owner or person entitled to possession. o Interference with the property of another, coupled with the intention of exercising dominion or control over it. o Tay Kian Hock v Kewangan Bersatu Bhd & Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Co v MacNiall  Df’s intention in so doing to deny the owner’s right or to assert a right which is inconsistent with the owner’s right.

Interference to Goods o

o o o

o o o

o

o

Lam Teik Kai v Hallam Nominees Ltd & Ors  Tort will not est if there is no positive wrongful act on the part of df. Enable the pl to have dominion and control over his goods. Moving goods doesn’t give rise to a conversion but only TTG. Conversion only arises when the detention of goods is adverse to the owner, excluding him from goods, accompanied by an intention to keep the goods. Df’s conduct must be inconsistent with the rights of owner or another who is entitled to possession. The conduct is deliberate and not accidental. The conduct constitutes an extensive encroachment on the right of the owner such as excluded form use and possession of the goods. Kuwait Airways Corp v Iraqi Airways Co  Lesser acts of interference which could rise TTG not converse by using but -for test in successive conversions. Elements of conversion  Mental state of defendant  Act must be voluntary and deliberately  Detention of goods is adverse to the owner, excluding him from goods, accompanied by an intention to keep the goods.  Either voluntarily with the goods didn’t know or could not reasonably have known, of the other party’s interest in the goods.  Rimba Muda Timber Trading v Lim Kuah Wee  The duty to refrain from dealing with another’s goods is absolute.  Ashby v Tolhurst  The pl’s car was parked on df’s car park area is nowhere to be seen. He then told by df that df’s friend had drove it away. There was also disclaimer of the liability of the car park.  Held: the df not liable as there was no intentional act on his part.  Any person who fraudulently derive goods from another and subsequently disposes of them, whether for his benefit or otherwise is guilty of conversion.  Hollins v fowler

Pl had some bundles of cotton. Df tricked pl and obtained possession of some bundles. Df then buy the cotton and sell to 3rd party.  Held: df liable as he has intention on to deal with the cottons and no ac on can be taken against the purchaser as he is bona fide purchaser.  Principle arises was the df directly involve in the business negotiation, he then dispose the goods to third party, then he is liable.  If someone directly involved in the business of transaction and the df is merely rep who delivers the goods, therefore he didn’t commit conversion.  A bona fide purchaser cannot be sued for conversion  Che Din Mohamed Hashim v Teoh Ong Thor and Chew Chan Seng  The purchaser didn’t acquire good tittle as he and the seller knew at the time of sale that seller had no right to sell the goods.  This is in accordance with the principle that a purchaser acquires no better tittle than what the seller has.  Interference or inconsistent dealing  Taking possession  Taking possession of another’s property without lawful justification, this give rise either TTG or Conversion.  Interference is merely temporary and without intention to exercise right ove the goods or property  Removing goods from one place to another doesn’t amount to conversion.  Eric Chan Thiam Soon v Sarawak Securities Sdn Bhd.  A reminisier is authorised to withdraw client’s shares and who does not dishonestly, as in withdrawing the shares for his own person benefit would be committing coversion.  Taking possession of the goods not always amount to depriving the owner of possession.  Deprivation could still be established even if the owner is excluded from possession, or possession is withheld. 

Interference to Goods 















Kuwait Airways Corp v Iraqi Airways Co  Exclusion from possession may sometimes be made out if the wrongdoer intends to exercise dominion over the goods and no otherwise. Rimba Muda Timber Trading v Lim Kuah Wee  Timber concession was given to A and he appointed D as principal contractor thus, P was appointed by D to fell and extract timber.  P then claimed trespass and conversion against D and RMTT.  Held: property right was in the logs was given to P when he because licensee to extract timber and didn’t matter of the contract btw D and P was illegal. The law will protect the right of the true owner. If a person receives a goods which belongs to 3rd party and didn’t give consent for it will liable for conversion. JH Rayner (Mincing Lane Ltd v Teck Hock & Co (Pte) Ltd & Ors  As a General rule, person who don’t own the goods and without of consent commits conversion.  The person to whom the goods are conveyed obtains no better title and liable for conversion. A person receives goods without requesting for the goods, the principle was is he didn’t commit conversion by virtue of that involuntary reception. He need to safekeep these goods. He only have to prove this necessary and will not liable if the obj lost. Lethbridge v Philips  The 3rd party left P’s painting at df’s house. The painting was damaged due as it was placed near the stove.  The df will not liable as the principle stated that if a person receives goods involuntarily and damaged due to negligent. Howard v Harris  The pl voluntarily send a manuscript to the df’s producer ad the pd lost the manuscript.

 Held: the df is not liable. A person received the goods involuntarily and destroyed the goods will be liable for conversion.  Simmon v Lillystone  The test for destruction is said to be, when the identity of the goods dissaper such as sugar to syrup, grape to wine or ground corn to flour.  Damage to goods may not amount to conversion but only trespass.  If the goods unchanged but damages constitutes a conversion on the ground that damaged goods cannot longer fulfil the originality that has given rise to a denial of the owner’s right over the goods.  Abusing possession  The df initially had the power to own the goods and subsequently does an act that constitutes a conversion.  Moorgate Mercantile Co v Finch  A breached of term, the owner may take immediate possession over the car.  D1 lend car to D2 and he used the car to smuggle watches and the car was confiscated by custom officials.  D2 held liable in conversion for using the car for unauthorised purposes. Person who may claim  Bailment  Lord v Price  The pl bought two bales of cotton where one was paid and other paid with a deposit.  The pl came back to collect and df bought it under a mistake.  Held: There is no conversion as pl didn’t have the right to immediate possession and his claim failed. 



Detinue o Illegal possession of goods due to withdrawal of consent by the owner of the goods. o Wrongful detention of goods which pl has an immediate right to possess. o Under detinue, df has the right to actual possession. o Element of Detinue

Interference to Goods  Demand and refusal  The df must keep the property even after he was demanded to return them.  Supreme Leasing Sdn Bhd v Lee Gee & Ors  If there is express stipulation that the goods must be returned at a specific time, non-return will automatically give rise to detinue without any demand being made.  Nambiar v Chin Kim Fong  Pl’s company request him to send his car to df’s workshop for repair.  After repair, df refuse to release the car and demanded pl to sign some df.  Held: df constituted detinue since the car was not released even after demanded by the pl and signing a certain doc is unnecessary.  Immediate right to possession

 He has the right to immediate possession at the time of commencing the action, arising out of an absolute property.  Sajan Singh v Sardara Ali  Pl bought a lorry by his own capital but all doc under df’s name.  Pl is requesting road tax under his name and df went to drove away from pl’s house.  Even the pl and df transaction is illegal, the pl has the right to immediate possession and his claim in detinue succeeded.  Abdul Mutalib bin Hassan v Maimoon Haji Abdul Wahid  The pl operates coffee shop rented from df and df locked the premises after he didn’t pay rent properly.  Held: the df committed trespass and non – payment of rent is not a defence.

Comparison between Conversion and Detinue Elements Intention Characteristic of Tort

Who may sue?

Amount of Damages/Compensation

Conversion Intentional dealing of goods One wrongful act / denial of pl’s right over the goods or property

Detinue Negligent is sufficient Continuous tort/ from the period of trespass until the day of judgement/ wrongful retention of pl’s property, Person with immediate Person with immediate possession or actual possession possession Initial value during the Value during the judgement conversion day from the day of refusal and the day of actual return or day of payment of value....