SUPREME COURT Dispute Over Ownership Of Daimler Cars

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 32073, 22 August 1969, Page 7

SUPREME COURT Dispute Over Ownership Of Daimler Cars

Whether two Daimler cars, purchased in April, 1967, for $12,651, were the property of Batemai Television, Ltd (in liquidation), or the personal property of its directors, Messrs N. D. Bateman and G. I. Thomas, was argued before Mr Justice Macarthur in the Supreme Court yesterday. The Official Assignee, as provisional liquidator of the company (Mr N. W. Williamson), sought direction of the Court as to the disposal of the vehicles, plus a third vehicle, a Morris 1100, saying that as new models of the Daimler car had been released, it was considered prudent to sell them rather than incur a possible loss by bold-

ing them. A Supreme Court order had been made on December 33 last that the Official Assignee retain possession and control <rf the vehicles until further order of the Court on the ground that they appeared to be toe property of the Bateman company in liquidation. Fundamental Question

Mr C. I Patterson (Wellington), for its directors, Messrs Bateman and Thomas, yesterday made no objection to an orter as to the Morris car—but the two Daimlers were “rather special cars,” he said, and the question of their ownership was fundamental. The question was, said Mr Patterson, whether the prims facie ownership by Messrs Bateman and Thomas was displaced by evidence of a trust, on the basis that Bateman Television had provided the money to purchase the vehicles. Bateman Television, Mr Patterson said, had provided money not as a purchaser but on drawings to Messrs Bateman and Thomas, so that the cars were plainly their property. His Honour, after hearing the evidence and crossexamination by Mr Williamson of Robert Currie, secretary of the Bateman companies, and submissions from

counsel, reserved decision. Messrs Bateman and Thomas were offered for cross-examination on affidavits they had filed in the ease, but were not crossexamined. Privy Council Appeal His Honour also reserved decision on an earlier motion by the Official Assignee for a direction as to the filing of a statement of affairs of Bateman Television by its directors, Mr Williamson having submitted that there should be a fixed date for this, and suggesting two months from the present Mr Patterson sought an extension at time until further order of the Court, saying that as the appeal to the Privy Council against the winding-up of Bateman Television and Bateman TV Hire, Ltd, was unlikely to be heard within three months, at the least, such course would be appropriate. If the appeal succeeded, the need to present a statement was raised. If it was unsuccessful, then there should be reasonable time for the filing of a statement after that His Honour asked what was the difficulty about signing a statement of affairs? Mr Patterson said: ‘They ail concern the finance companics’ claims and inter-com-pany claims which are dependent on the finance companies; claims. There is no

problem to relation to any other claims.” The finance companies, said Mr Patterson, claimed that sums totalling 8400,000 were owing by the Bateman companies—which was denied. The latter’s directors considered the whole scheme

of financing by the finance companies contravened the Moneylenders’ Act On the latter point, his Honour said: 'That is utterly irrelevant” Daimler Cars

On the matter of the Daimler cars, Mr Williamson, commenting on the evidence Of Mr Currie, secretary of the Bateman companies, submitted that it showed ownership of the vehicles to lie with Bateman Television.

Two previous Daimlers, used as trade-ins, were the property of that company and shown in its books, Mr Williamson said. The new Daimlers were financed entirely by money and assets of Bateman Television and Bateman

TV Hire. The deposit, paid at the time of purchase, was a cheque drawn on Bateman TV Hire, and the instalments were paid by cheques drawn on the same company. The current accounts of Messrs Bateman and Thomas were in debit in both companies at the relevant time. Mr Williamson said: “On these facts, my submission is that although the directors appear to have signed agreements with Croydon Motors, Ltd, in their own names, because of their peculiar position as directors of the companies concerned, they were trustees for Bateman TeleI vision.” Mr Patterson’s Submissions Mr Patterson submitted that the Daimler ears had been purchased in the names of. Messrs Bateman and Thomas. Prima fade, the ears were their property, as purchasers.

‘The liquidator asserts that Messrs Bateman and Thomas hold the cars as resulting trustees. I say, as resulting trustees for whom?" Mr Patterson said. “The liquidator says Bateman Television, but

r it appears that company did ■ not contribute the whole of ! the funds for the purchase. • Bateman TV Hire also contributed. “If there is any question I of a resulting trust, the cooi tributions of the two com- ■ parties would have to be con- > sidered. I submit that neither ■ company contributed as pur- ; chaser. On the contrary, both i companies contributed draw- • togs. Bateman TV Hire be- • eame a creditor of Bateman i Television to respect of its : contributions, and therefore cannot be reckoned a pur- ■ chaser. Bateman Television • contributed drawings to ; Messrs Bateman and Thomas : respectively,” Mr Patterson : said. It was admitted, he said, , that the ultimate source of I the consideration for the two • cars was from assets of Bate- ■ man Television and Bateman TV Hire. But that, of itself, , said nothing of the where- ■ abouts of the property. > “The crux of the case, in i my submission, is in what i character was that considera- : tion provided,” Mr Patterson said. It was, he submitted, provided in the character of Messrs Bateman and Thomas as purchasers. There was no evidence to displace the prima facie evidence of that His Honour, after paying he would make an order, by consent, for disposal of the

Morris 1100 car, reserved decision on the question of the Daimler cars.