Case Over Ownership Of Dredge Continued

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 31989, 16 May 1969, Page 7

Case Over Ownership Of Dredge Continued

Submissions, evidence and legal argument on the contested ownership of a suctiontype dredge, the Kopunawai, valued at §93,000, were heard by Mr Justice Wilson in the Supreme Court yesterday. The hearing, which began on April 17, resumed yesterday and will continue today.

Miller, Gale and Winter, public accountants (Mr J. N. Matson), claim the dredge is the property of Owers Bros, Ltd, a contracting company now in receivership. Paintin and Nottingham, Ltd, engineers (Messrs C. B. Atkinson and I. J. D. Hall), who built the dredge between 1963 and 1965 for Owers Bros, claim it is their property as ownership had never passed from them to Owers Bros. A seizure notice was attached to the dredge by Miller, Gale and Winter under a distress warrant in October, 1968, after the firm had obtained judgment for $1456.88 against Owers Bros, in respect of accountancy fees. Paintin and Nottingham then claimed they owned the dredge and initiated Supreme Court proceedings. The completed dredge was moved from the yard of Paintin and Nottingham in

April, 1965, and later taken to a site on the Waimakariri River. In July, 1965, Owers Bros executed a security in favour of Paintin and Nottingham for moneys owing to the dredge. Paintin and Nottingham now claim the dredge under the security, a conditional purchase agreement. At the earlier hearing Mr Matson submitted that property in the dredge had passed and that it belonged at all material times to Owers Bros, at least from the beginning of April when it was taken from Paintin and Nottingham’s yard. Owers Bros got into further financial difficulties in December, 1965, and the dredge was taken by Paintin and Nottingham pursuant to the July agreement. Conditional Purchase

Mr Atkinson submitted yesterday that the dredge underwent trials and modifications on the Waimakariri site, and work was done on it by Paintin and Nottingham.

The conditional purchase agreement accurately and fairly set out the financial bargain of the parties—a charge on the chattel in favour of Paintin and Not-

tingham, Mr Atkinson said. It was never contemplated by the parties that ownership of the dredge would pass to Owers Bros until the trials and modifications had been carried out and they had accepted the dredge as performance by Paintin and Nottingham of the contract. Although the dredge was shifted it was still in the process of construction. The engineering company had not completed its contract.

Mr Atkinson said the contract was for the manufacture and supply of a future chattel the property in which, as distinct from possession, had not passed to Owers Bros. Had the property passed to Owers Bros before the agreement of conditional purchase the agreement itself was sufficient to pass it back to Paintin and Nottingham. “Registration of the conditional purchase agreement gave notice to the whole world of the bargain the parties had made under seal.”

If the agreement was not held to be a conditional purchase agreement it was at least a security on the property or an undertaking by Owers Bros for money lent or owing.

Mr Atkinson submitted finaly that Miller, Gale and Winter had been stopped from a claim because they had stood by or acquiesced when Paintin and Nottingham had taken possession of the dredge under the agreement.