Greenwood v Bennett
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | The Master of the Rolls,LORD JUSTICE PHILLIMORE,LORD JUSTICE CAIRNS |
| Judgment Date | 26 June 1972 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1972] EWCA Civ J0626-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 26 June 1972 |
[1972] EWCA Civ J0626-1
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Appeal by Reginald James Harper, the second claimant, from Judgment of His Honour Judge Chope at Truro and Falmouth County Court on 16th July, 1971.
The Master of the Rolls (Lord Denning)
Lord Justice Phillimore and
Lord Justice Cairns
Mr, CHRISTOPHER RAWLINS (instructed by Messrs. Gregory Rowcliffe Cc Co., agents for Messrs. G.C. Davis & Partners of Redruth, Cornwall) appeared on behalf of the Appellant Second Claimant.
Mr. SIMON TUCKEY (instructed by Messrs. Simmons & Simmons, agents for Messrs. Sltwell,- Money & Murdoch of Truro) appeared on behalf of the Respondent First Claimant.
This case raises an interesting point about improvements done to a Jaguar motor car. It was owned by Currendon Property Co. Ltd., but for present purposes it may be treated as the property of their manager, Mr. Bennett, who was in charge on their garage at Truro. Mr. Bennett was authorised by the company to sell the Jaguar car. It was worth 400 or 500. But it needed some repairs done to it so as to command a better price. So Mr. Bennett entrusted it to a Mr. Searle, who agreed to do the repairs for the sum of 85. But I am afraid that Mr. Searie was a rogue. Instead of doinp the repairs, he took it out on to the road and drove it for his own purposes. He was in collision with another vehicle. It was extensively damaged, so much so that Mr. Searie, without the slightest right to do so, made up mind to sell it himself in its damaged state. On 6th July, 1970, ho sold it to a garage proprietor of iedruth, a Mr. Harper, for the sum of 75. That was all it was worth in that state. Mr. Searie did not produce the logbook. Ho made sone excuse or other for not producing it. And Mr. Harper bought it in good faith for 75. Then Mr. Harper did a great deal of work on it himself. He made good this extensive damage. He put the car in good order. In all, it cost him 226-47 for labour and material. Then he sold it to a finance company who let it on hirepurchase to a Mr. Prattle of Penryn for 450.
Meanwhile the true owners, Mr. Bennett's company, had demanded the car from Mr. Searie. He did not deliver it. Mr. Bennett inquired of the police. They found the car at Mr. Prattle's, and took
possession of it. They prosecuted Mr. Searie. On 2nd November, 1970, he was convicted at Truro of stealing the car, and was fined. But what was to happen to the car? The Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall had it in his possession. There were rival claims to it.So he took out an interpleader summons in the County Court. The Claimants were Mr. Bennett, Mr. Harper and Mr. Prattle: but eventually it resoved itself into a contest betwern Mr. Bennett, who represented the true owners of the car, and Mr. Harper, who had bought it from the rogue Searle for 75. The summons was hetard by the County Court Judge. At the hearing Mr. Harper agreed that the legal title was in Mr. Bennett, but ho said: "I want to be paid the 226 for the work I have done on the car". The Judge held that Mr. Bennett's company was entitled to the car, and that Mr. Harper was cntitlod to nothing for the work he had done on it. He held that Mr. Harper had no lien and no remedy. The Judge said: "It seems to me that the loss must lie where it falls. Mr. Harper must be left with his worthless remedy against Mr. Searle". So the Judge ordered the car to be handed over to Mr. Bennett's company. The Chief Constable obeyed that order. It was handed over, and Mr. Bennett's company have resold it for 400, or so. Mr. Harper now appeals to this Court. He asks that he should be paid 226 for the work ha did on the car, and of which the company have had the benefit.
To decide this case, I think it helpful to consider the legal position as if the police had not taken possession of the car, but it had remained in Mr. Prattle's possession.
In the first place, if Mr. Bennett's company had brought an action against Mr. Harper for conversion of the car, (relying on his purchase of it from Mr. Searle for 75 as the act of conversion) then the damages would be 75 as its value at that time: whereas, if they had brought an action for conversion (relying upon his sale of it to the finance company as the act of conversion) the damages would be its improved value at the time of sale, but the plaintiffs would have to give credit for the work which Mr. Harper had done on it:see Munro v. Willmott (1949). 1 K.B. 295. So I suppose they would recover again about 75.
In the second place, if Mr, Bennett's company had brought an action in detinue against Mr. Prattle (whilst it was still in his possession) they could have recovered from him the value of the car at the time of judgment i.e., as improved by At. Harper's work: see Rosenthal v. Alderton & Sons. Ltd. (1946) K.B. 374; General and Finance Facilities Ltd. v. Cooks Cars, (1963) 1 W.L.R. at page 650 by Lord Justice Diplock. But Mr Prattle would have a claim against the Finance Company, which the FinaneeCompany could pass on to Mr. Harper: and the damages rocov rable by them from Mr. Harper would be 450, the value of the car as ho sold it them. In those circumstances, I should think that justice would require that Mr. Harper should be able to recover the cost of his work from Mr. Bannett's company. Otherwise, you would get the very odd result that the plaintiffs, by suing Mr. Prattle in detinue, could - by this indirect means - recover from Mr. Harper more than they could by suing him directly in conversion.
In the third place: if Mr. Bennett's company had brought an action against Mr. Prattle for specific delivery of the car, it is very unlikely that an order for specific delivery of the car would be made. But if it had been, no Court would orderits delivery unless compensation was made for the improvements. There is a valuable judgment by Lord Macnaghten in Peruvian Guano Co. v. Dreyfus Bros. & Co. (1892) A.C. 166 at page 176, wherehe said:
"I am not aware of any authority upon the point, but I should doubt whether it was incumbent upon the Court to order the defendant to return the goods in specie where the plaintiff refused to make a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
TFL Management Services Ltd v Lloyds Bank Plc
...the present case was acting under a mistake was a basis for distinguishing Becerra or Ruabon Steamship. However, in Greenwood v Bennett [1973] 1 QB 195, a Mr Harper, a garage mechanic, bought a Jaguar car from a rogue who had stolen it and wrecked it in an accident. He expended money on rep......
- China Pacific S.A. v Food Corporation of India (Winson)
-
Gidney v. Feuerstein et al., (1995) 101 Man.R.(2d) 197 (QB)
...Ex. 329, refd to. [para. 8]. Falcke v. Scottish Imperial Insurance Co. (1886), 34 Ch. D. 234, refd to. [para. 8]. Greenwood v. Bennett, [1973] 1 Q.B. 195 (C.A.), refd to. [para. Moses v. MacFerlan (1760), 97 E.R. 676, refd to. [para. 10]. Sinclair v. Brougham, [1914] A.C. 398 (H.L.), refd t......
-
TFL Management Ltd v Lloyds TSB Bank Plc
...to a benefit unjustly gained by a defendant. It is only if a gain can be shown that a defendant can be said to have been enriched. Greenwood v. Bennett [1973] 1 QB 195 is not to contrary effect. Although the Court of Appeal directed that the true owner of the car in that case should account......
-
Change of position and restitution for wrongs: 'ne'er the twain shall meet'?
...779-80 (Kenyon CJ); Club 7 Ltd v EPK Holdings Ltd (1993) 115 Nfld & PEIR 271, 314-16 (Puddester J). (157) See Greenwood v Bennett [1973] QB 195, 202 (Lord Denning MR). See also Munro v Willmott [1949] 1 KB 295. It is possible for these cases to be reanalysed as not awarding disgorgement......
-
An Old Snail in a New Bottle? Waiver of Tort as An Independent Cause of Action
...some circumstances, Doug may have a claim in unjust enrichment against Paula for the value of his labour. See Greenwood v. Bennett, [1972] 3 All E.R. 586 at 588 (C.A.), Lord Denning M.R.; and at 589, Phillimore L.J. (“on equitable principles someone who has improved the car since it was ori......
-
Speaking the Class Action, Thinking the Class Action: A Discussion of Changing Trends in Quebec's Class Action Lexicon
...some circumstances, Doug may have a claim in unjust enrichment against Paula for the value of his labour. See Greenwood v. Bennett, [1972] 3 All E.R. 586 at 588 (C.A.), Lord Denning M.R.; and at 589, Phillimore L.J. (“on equitable principles someone who has improved the car since it was ori......
-
Strategies to Avoid Or Mitigate Class Action Litigation
...some circumstances, Doug may have a claim in unjust enrichment against Paula for the value of his labour. See Greenwood v. Bennett, [1972] 3 All E.R. 586 at 588 (C.A.), Lord Denning M.R.; and at 589, Phillimore L.J. (“on equitable principles someone who has improved the car since it was ori......