In-depth Legal Case Review: Penfolds Wines v Elliott & Flack Analysis

This case study provides a comprehensive review of two significant legal cases: Penfolds Wines v Elliott and Flack v Chairperson, National Crime Authority. The Penfolds Wines case explores the distinctions between trespass and conversion in property law, focusing on the unauthorized use of Penfolds' wine bottles by Elliott. The analysis covers the arguments presented by both parties and the differing conclusions reached by the judges, particularly regarding the tort of conversion and the concept of bailment. The Flack case examines the rights of an occupier concerning chattels found on their premises, specifically addressing whether Mrs. Flack had a right to possess a suitcase found in her home. The study details Hill J's decision in favor of Mrs. Flack, based on the tort of conversion and the principle that an occupier has a superior right to items found within their property. Both cases are analyzed in terms of their legal principles and relevance to property and tort law.

Legal Case Review

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
MAIN BODY...................................................................................................................................1
Task 1- ..................................................................................................................................1
Case of Penfolds Wines v Elliott (1946) 74 CLR 204 (‘Penfolds Wines’)...........................1
Task 2: ...................................................................................................................................4
Flack v Chairperson, National Crime Authority (1997) 80 FCR 137 (‘Flack’) ....................4
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................6
References:.......................................................................................................................................7

INTRODUCTION
The property law explains about the provisions related to the sale or purchase of any
property. It specifies the conditions on which the property can be used by the bailee under the
bailment agreement between the parties1. The tort law explains about the civil wrong done by the
defaulter party. When any civil wrong is done,then there is infringement of rights of the other
parties. The cases of tort are filed in the civil courts of the country. This report explains about the
two decided case laws. The first case law is related to property law and the second case law is
related to tort law. It also includes the concept of bailment.
MAIN BODY
Task 1-
Case of Penfolds Wines v Elliott (1946) 74 CLR 204 (‘Penfolds Wines’)
Ques. 1- Succinctly describe the issue before the Court in Penfolds Wines.
Ans. 1- The Penfolds Wines Pvt Limited has a business of producing and selling wines. The
other party to the case is Elliot who is the owner of an hotel situated in NSW. The Penfold's
bottle of wines are embossed with its name. There are also notations in the invoices that clearly
specifies that the bottles are exclusively for the use of wines of Penfold's company2. But, Elliot
filled the wine of other company in the bottle of Penfold delivered it. Now, the Penfold is asking
for injunction in the court for which the court denied. The denial by the court was due to lack of
proper evidence that shows the forbidden act done by Elliot3.
1 "CHARLESWORTH V. PENFOLDS WINES PTY. LTD." (2020) [1943] VLR
2 "Property. Unpatented Ideas As Property" (2020) 19(5)
3 "Specific Performance Of Contract: Contract Unenforcible" (2021) 16(3)
1

Ques. 2- On what basis did the plaintiff in this proceeding claim relief?
Ans. 2- the plaintiff in this case is Penfold. According to plaintiff, his rights is infringed in this
case. This implies that the defendant has misused the bottles that are exclusive for the wines of
Penfold lmt. The plaintiff had already mentioned that the bottles of Penfold will only contain the
wine company. The main basis of plaintiff for relief in this case is not proper use of bottles by
the defendant. Here, in this case the defendant is not authorised to use the bottles for filling with
different wines in the bottle.
Ques. 3- What remedy was the Appellant seeking?
Ans. 3- The remedy that the appellant is seeking is injunction. Injunction is a relief that is
provided to the aggrieved when the loss cannot be recovered if the wrongful act is not stopped at
that time instantly4. It further need the approval of the specified court to seek the remedy of
injunction. In this, the defendant is misusing the bottles of Penfold. But, in this case the
defendant has used the bottles to fill it with wine of another brand that does not belong to
Penfold. In order to stop this act, the plaintiff filed for injunction in the civil court of the country.
But, the court rejected the injunction by stating that the act does not have the sufficient grounds
for invoking the injunction.
Ques. 4 What is the difference between ‘trespass’ and ‘conversion’ according to their Honours?
Ans. 4 There is a wide difference between the trespass and conversion. The trespass happens
when a person with no legal rights enters into the personal property of the appellant. On the
contrary to this, the conversion means a civil wrong against the person who has the immediate
possession to that property. The conversion is done when someone intentionally causes damage
to the other person's personal property. Whereas the trespass means when the other person
wrongfully takes the possession of other person's property.
Ques. 5 Did their Honours consider that the Respondent had committed trespass?
4 Calkins, Tim, "Penfolds" [2021] Kellogg School of Management Cases
2

Ans. 5 No, the honours has not considered the act to be a trespass. This is so because of no
permanent use of the bottles. If the defendant had used this for the permanent intention, then it
would be turned as trespass. The honours decided that this may be a trespass as the dominion
may have use this for permanent or temporary basis. But here in this case, the actual use of the
branded bottles for the defendant brother's benefit is actually a case of conversion5.
Ques. 6 Did their Honours consider that the Respondent had committed conversion?
Ans. The honour has considered this as conversion in the judgement of the given case. This is
because the concept of conversion which states that the use of powers of actual owner by any
other person who is not authorised to do so. In this, the unauthorised used of branded bottles by
filling it with another wine is the misuse of the power of the defendant. This is so because the
actual owner of the wine was not the defendant. Moreover, it was clearly stated that the bottles
will only be used for containing the wines of Penfold6.
Ques. 7 Why did Dixon J conclude as he did in relation to the issue of conversion?
Ans.7 The judge Dixon explains the concept of conversion in order to give the best judgement.
Dixon concluded that the act in this case is the act of conversion for which he had specified the
valid reasons for his judgement. Here, in this case the use of the bottles was against the terms of
bailment. It is violating the rights of the bailor in this case study. It enables the bailor to sue the
bailee for such a wrongful act of conversion tort done by the defaulter party. Hence, this is the
case of conversion tort.
Ques. 8 How did Latham CJ’s reasoning differ (if at all) to that of Dixon J?
Ans. 8- The justice Latham described it as no wrongful act like tort. According to him, there is
always a clear difference between branded and no branded bottles. This means that when the
5 Grundmann, Stefan, "The Future Of Contract Law" (2020) 7(4) European Review of
Contract Law
6 H. C. W. T. and E. C. S. W., "Tort—Conversion" (2018) 1(2) The Cambridge Law
Journal
3

defendant filled the bottle with other wine that is not branded clearly states that it does not
contain the branded wine. So, there is no tort done by the defaulter in this case. Moreover, this
difference between is very common in the market.
Task 2:
Flack v Chairperson, National Crime Authority (1997) 80 FCR 137 (‘Flack’)
Ques. 9 Succinctly describe the issue before the Court in Flack.
Ans. 9 There are two legal issues involved in the case. Firstly, to decide whether the title of the
suitcase was in the possession of Mrs. Flack. Secondly, to decide whether Mrs. Flack is the real
owner of the suitcase or the NCA has the right to possess the suitcase. Both these issues are
judged in the civil court of Australia. Furthermore, NCA argued that Mrs. Flack has no
entitlement of briefcase. So, the briefcase must not be handed over to Mrs. Flack. Moreover, it
also discusses about the controlling power over all the chattels is in the hands of Mrs. Flack7.
Ques. 10 Who did Hill J find for in Flack, and on what basis?
Ans. 10 The judge Hill explained that the title of the briefcase must go to Mrs Flack. This is due
to the tort of conversion as stated by Hill J. This would mean that the NCA has no authority to
keep the suitcase and must return it back to Flack. It is of no reason that where the briefcase
came from as it was in the property of the occupier, that is Flack. Further more, it is also
supported by three grounds namely goods abandoned , goods in possession of occupier and
presumption.
Ques. 11 Hill J referred to Penfolds Wines in his judgement. What principle was applied relying
on Penfolds Wines in the judgement in Flack and how was it relevant to the outcome of that
case?
7 J. J. D., "Tort—Cattle Trespass—Pony Bolting From Highway" (2020) 2(2) The
Cambridge Law Journal
4

Ans. 11 The principle applied by Hill is conversion of tort. This principle is relevant in this case
because the suitcase was found in the occupancy of Flack which makes Flack the owner of that
suitcase. There is further no need of entitlement of the possession as per this principle of tort.
Hence, it is well justified in this case as described by the judge Hill8.
Ques. 12 Complete the table given below.
Ans. 12
Was there a trespass? Was there a conversion? Should the plaintiff get the remedy they
sought?
Latham CJ yes no yes
Starke J No comment made yes yes
Dixon J no yes yes
McTiernan J no No comment made no
Williams J no yes No comments made
8 Phillips, J., "Property! What Property?" (2020) 6(12) Journal of Intellectual Property
Law & Practice
5

CONCLUSION
The above report concludes about the concept of tort. It explains about the conversion
and trespass in the two cases given in the report. This also details about the rights of the parties
in case of tort done by the defaulter party.
6

References:
Books and Journals
"CHARLESWORTH V. PENFOLDS WINES PTY. LTD." (2020) [1943] VLR
"Property. Unpatented Ideas As Property" (2020) 19(5)
"Specific Performance Of Contract: Contract Unenforcible" (2021) 16(3)
Calkins, Tim, "Penfolds" [2021] Kellogg School of Management Cases
Grundmann, Stefan, "The Future Of Contract Law" (2020) 7(4) European Review of Contract
Law
H. C. W. T. and E. C. S. W., "Tort—Conversion" (2018) 1(2) The Cambridge Law Journal
J. J. D., "Tort—Cattle Trespass—Pony Bolting From Highway" (2020) 2(2) The Cambridge
Law Journal
Phillips, J., "Property! What Property?" (2020) 6(12) Journal of Intellectual Property Law
& Practice
7