Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

Trespass To Goods Notes

Law Notes > Intentional Torts Notes

This is an extract of our Trespass To Goods document, which we sell as part of our Intentional Torts Notes collection written by the top tier of Griffith University students.

The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Intentional Torts Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:













TRESPASS
TO GOODS





















INTENTIONAL TORTS | 55 INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH GOODS

What is a chattel/good? * A chattel (or good) may be defined as any tangible property that is not
land or attached to the land
o Terms can be used interchangeably * Including:
o Cars, bikes, televisions
o Money (but only in limited circumstances)
SS? Identify that particular money - exact notes and coins
o Cheques
SS? The paper itself is the property
o Animals
Slaveski v Victoria [2010] VSC 441 * Slaveski sued 23 present or former police officers ("police
defendants") and the State of Victoria ("State") seeking damages for
assault and battery, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution,
defamation, trespass to land, trespass to goods, conversion, detinue
and negligence * Once officers decided not to charge applicant in relation to seized
goods, the continued possession of goods became unlawful * HELD: Slaveski entitled to nominal damages of $1100 for trespass
to goods arising from officers moving goods in shop and
transcribing details of goods


Chep Australia v Bunnings Group [2010] NSWSC 301 * Retail hardware chain Bunnings ordered to pay $10.98 million plus
interest to CHEP, a business that supplied storage pallets for hire,
after it was found that Bunnings stores had failed to return tens of
thousands of their pallets * HELD: The New South Wales Supreme Court determined that
Bunnings was liable in tort for conversion and detinue as the
majority of the pallets were not subject to any hire agreement










56 | INTENTIONAL TORTS DOES THE PLAINTIFF HAVE STANDING? * Particular right or interest in the goods * Distinguish between
o Ownership
SS? Legal right of the good
SS? Owner might not be in possession of it
u? Torts protecting interest in goods generally
protect possession rather than ownership
o Possession
SS? Actual
u? actual or de facto possession means there must
be effective occupation or control of the goods * Hold the good
u? Car in a driveway
u? Papers in your bag
SS? Constructive possession
u? Not within immediate reach of the person but
within close proximity * Where a person has legal possession
without actual possession
u? Any person with a key to a car
u? Keeping papers in a bank
o Who has possession at that specific time
o Possession is established when:
SS? A person intends to hold the goods for their own
purposes
SS? Has sufficient control of the goods * Right to immediate possession
o Legal right to demand that the person with the actual custody
of the goods return it immediately
SS? Eg: lawnmower is lent to another person * Bailment
o Transfer of possession without ownership
o Loan of goods for a:
SS? Finite period
SS? And with specific conditions
o Transferor = bailor
o Receiver = bailee
SS? Bailees have possession but not ownership
SS? They become the custodian of the goods
u? May have standing more so than the owner
SS? If there is no consideration, it is likely that the bailor has
an immediate right to goods
SS? Common law imposes duties on bailees:
u? Duty to return goods at the end of the bailment
u? Duty to take reasonable care of goods
u? Duty not to convert the goods

INTENTIONAL TORTS | 57

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Intentional Torts Notes.