Hello again, Michael.
It's a shame that there appears to be only a single case relevant to
your situation, but I suspect it will turn out to be a valuable asset
all the same.
The case references a considerable amount of precedent (most of it not
available to me in online resources) regarding worker's liens. From
my (admittedly non-professional) reading of the case, there are some
factors in here that will probably weigh well in your favor.
In particular, there is this section of the case (appearing near the
end) where the court reasons that -- even if the defendants had a
better case -- they still might not have had a valid claim to stake a
lien on the plaintiff's car:
-----
Even if the circumstances of the defendant's possession had been apt
to found a valid retention of the property, I consider the lien would
have been later lost in any event.
The creation of a lien is conditional upon a number of circumstances.
One of those is that the claimant must receive possession for the same
purpose for which the lien is claimed: see generally "The Artificer's
Lien", RD Elliott, 1967, Law Book Company, and particularly at pp
18-48. Now the defendant originally took possession of the speedcar
for the purpose of looking over the car and changing the seat and
torsion bars. It was not contemplated that the plaintiff would be
charged for the defendant's work. Moreover, throughout the
relationship, the defendant's possession of the vehicle - which was
interrupted when the plaintiff resumed possession of it for racing
meetings - was as much for convenience and safe storage as for
anything else. Although the defendant often worked on the car between
meetings, that was never in the course of a commercial relationship.
Prior to late April 2001, it was not suggested that the car would be
held as security for payment of invoices raised by the defendant or by
anyone else. Indeed the defendant never presented an account for his
own labour to the plaintiff, and nor could he have done so having
regard to their agreement.
------
In this next excerpt, the court also added that the defendant's
creation of an after-the-fact lien added to the overall weakness of
his claim:
-----
Furthermore, as seen, the defendant did not formulate his claim until
well after the time when he refused to deliver up the speedcar, and
nor had the plaintiff the particulars which would have enabled him to
calculate such a claim. (cf Albermarle Supply Company Limited v Hind &
Co [1927] All ER 401, 406; Weeks v Henry Goode & Anor (1959) 6
C.B.(N.S.) 367).
-----
As I said, there's a lot in this case to provide food for thought.
I've provided a link to the case, below, along with some of the
excerpts that struck me as most pertinent. However, please read the
case through in its entirety yourself (and have your counsel do the
same) to make the best use of the material it contains.
And as always -- if you have any questions on all this, please let me
know before rating this question.
Best of luck.
pafalafa-ga
==========
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/sa/SADC/2003/13.html?query=%22workmen%22+and+%22s%22+and+%22lien%22+and+%22repair%22
MONK v BAINES No. DCCIV-01-1932 [2003] SADC 13 (12 February 2003)
DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
Judgment of Her Honour Judge Vanstone
Hearing
04/11/2002 to 08/11/2002, 11/11/2002 to 15/11/2002.
--Claim for return of plaintiff's speedcar retained by defendant
pursuant to a claimed lien
--The plaintiff makes a series of claims arising out of an arrangement
which evolved during the period April 2000 to December 2000 between
himself, the defendant, and the defendant's son, Adam Baines (Adam),
whereby Adam was to drive the plaintiff's speedcar in the 2000/2001
season (and perhaps beyond that season) and the defendant, a motor
mechanic, was to perform some maintenance work and effect some
mechanical improvements to the car. He seeks, for example, a
declaration that he is the legal owner of the speedcar and its return
from the defendant's custody, and exemplary damages.
--In response to the plaintiff's claim the defendant has
counter-claimed for the value of parts and labour provided by the
defendant in relation to improvements to and maintenance on the car
and he has claimed for costs said to have been incurred in storing the
car during part of the period when the defendant retained possession
pursuant to the lien he claims. The total of his claims as set out in
the pleadings is $29,552.63
--On 18 April 2001 the plaintiff went to the defendant's home to pick
up the car and trailer and found the trailer had been removed from the
premises. Adam told the plaintiff it was in use by the defendant for
transporting items to the defendant's new home
--When the plaintiff approached the defendant at his workplace on the
next day the defendant told him he had "a problem" in delivering the
car up to the plaintiff. Ultimately in discussions over the next few
days, some of which included Max Monk, that refusal was confirmed.
--On 27 April 2001 solicitors acting for the plaintiff hand-delivered
a letter to the defendant (Exhibit P2) demanding the return of the
car, trailer and its contents. By letter dated 28 April 2001 (Exhibit
P17) solicitors then instructed by the defendant advised that the
defendant claimed "an equitable interest in the subject property" and
was "in the process of obtaining an estimate of his value in the
subject property". They further advised that their client declined to
return the property by the time stipulated by the plaintiff. There was
no mention in terms of the claim of a lien or of any specific amount
said to be owed.
--It is convenient to deal with the defendant's claim that he has a
lien over the vehicle. I set out that claim, which appears at
paragraph 9 of his further amended defence and counter-claim.
[paragraph 9 follows]
9. As to paragraph 11 the defendant admits that he has refused to
deliver the vehicle to the plaintiff. The defendant says that he has a
workmen's lien or alternatively a bailee's lien or alternatively a
common law lien over the vehicle pending the payment by the plaintiff
to the defendant in the amount of $29,552.63 as pleaded in the
counterclaim below. The defendant says that he is not obliged to
deliver the vehicle to the plaintiff until his lien has been
discharged.
--It seemed to me that what was in fact being asserted at trial was a
worker's lien over the speedcar for the defendant's charges for work
done and materials supplied in relation to it, amounting to the figure
mentioned above in the pleadings, as later varied.
[Here is the material I already cited above, repeated here to show how
it "flowed" in the case]
--In my view there are several difficulties with this assertion. Even
if the circumstances of the defendant's possession had been apt to
found a valid retention of the property, I consider the lien would
have been later lost in any event.
The creation of a lien is conditional upon a number of circumstances.
One of those is that the claimant must receive possession for the same
purpose for which the lien is claimed: see generally "The Artificer's
Lien", RD Elliott, 1967, Law Book Company, and particularly at pp
18-48. Now the defendant originally took possession of the speedcar
for the purpose of looking over the car and changing the seat and
torsion bars. It was not contemplated that the plaintiff would be
charged for the defendant's work. Moreover, throughout the
relationship, the defendant's possession of the vehicle - which was
interrupted when the plaintiff resumed possession of it for racing
meetings - was as much for convenience and safe storage as for
anything else. Although the defendant often worked on the car between
meetings, that was never in the course of a commercial relationship.
Prior to late April 2001, it was not suggested that the car would be
held as security for payment of invoices raised by the defendant or by
anyone else. Indeed the defendant never presented an account for his
own labour to the plaintiff, and nor could he have done so having
regard to their agreement.
--Accordingly, on each occasion when the plaintiff resumed possession
without any limitation being placed upon that possession, any
possibility of the claim of a lien for work done to that time would
have been lost: Hatton v Car Maintenance Company Limited [1915] 1 Ch
621. After the last occasion when the plaintiff resumed possession and
then returned the vehicle, no further work was done.
--Furthermore, as seen, the defendant did not formulate his claim
until well after the time when he refused to deliver up the speedcar,
and nor had the plaintiff the particulars which would have enabled him
to calculate such a claim. (cf Albermarle Supply Company Limited v
Hind & Co [1927] All ER 401, 406; Weeks v Henry Goode & Anor (1959) 6
C.B.(N.S.) 367). Even when the solicitor's letter, D5, was sent on 15
May 2001, rather than claiming a lien, the assertions on behalf of the
defendant were of "an interest in the engine and the rest of the car",
ownership of a number of parts installed in the car and that it would
be "unconscionable for [the plaintiff] to assert his position as
exclusive owner without debt over the vehicle". Thus the defendant may
well have waived any lien that he originally held: Boardman v Sill
(1808) 170 ER 1003.
I find therefore that the defendant's retention of the speedcar was
wrongful. His claim for storage fees in relation to it necessarily
fails.
--The relief sought by the plaintiff includes a declaration that the
plaintiff is the legal owner of the property and an order for the
return of the property.
--However, the plaintiff does seek exemplary damages. He relied on
what was said to be contumelious disregard for the plaintiff's
position from the time when the plaintiff originally sought to recover
the car up to and including the defendant's conduct at trial. In
particular, Mr Swan pointed to the extravagant claims for labour and
parts made by the defendant, his unsupportable claim for storage fees,
the defendant's attack on the plaintiff's attitude to meeting his
financial commitments, assertions about the quality of the plaintiff's
work as a tradesman, his supposedly high-handed conduct with Mr
Haydon, extending to threatening him, and the defendant's conduct in
moving the car from his premises contrary to the order made in this
court.
--There will be judgment for the plaintiff upon his claim and I make
the following orders:
1. I declare that the plaintiff is the legal owner of the speedcar SA
Reg No 3 and was at all relevant times entitled to immediate
possession of it;
2. I direct that Robert Sincock deliver up possession of the speedcar
to the plaintiff immediately upon the plaintiff's request;
==========
Again...any questions, just ask. |
