Webb v Ireland & Ag

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Mr. Justice Blayney
• Judgment Date: 10 December 1986
• Neutral Citation: 1987 WJSC-HC 1208
• Docket Number: No. 3139P/1982
• Date: 10 December 1986

WEBB v. IRELAND & AG

BETWEEN/

MICHAEL T.S. WEBB AND MICHAEL O'CONNELL WEBB (AN INFANT SUING BY HIS FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND MICHAEL T.S. WEBB)

PLAINTIFFS

AND

IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

DEFENDANTS

1987 WJSC-HC 1208

No. 3139P/1982

THE HIGH COURT

Synopsis:

CONTRACT

Bailment

Detinue - Return of goods - Treasure trove - Appropriate order - Goods restored on behalf of the bailee - Expenses incurred by bailee after bailor demanded the return of the goods - Articles sent by bailee, before the demand for their return, to British Museum to be restored - British Museum charges of #25,800 paid by bailee - Held that the plaintiff bailors were not obliged to pay defendant bailee the amount of the expenses incurred by the bailee after the plaintiffs had demanded the return of the goods - Held that at the date of the judgment the value of the treasure trove was #5,536,000 - Held that the plaintiffs were entitled, at their election, either to the return of the treasure trove provided that they paid the defendant the sum of #25,800 or to the recovery from the defendant of the sum of #5,536,000 less #25,800 - Held that the plaintiffs were also entitle to #1 damages for the detention of the articles - (1982/3139 P - Blayney J. - 10/12/86)

|Webb v. Ireland|

ORDER

Detinue

Return of goods - Treasure trove - Expenses incurred by defendant bailee in restoring the articles - Held that plaintiff bailor was entitled, at his election, either to the return of the articles upon payment to the defendant of the sum expended in restoring the articles, or to payment by the defendant of the value of the articles less the cost of their restoration - Plaintiff entitled to nominal damages for the detention of the articles - (1982/3139 P - Blayney J. - 10/12/86)

|Webb v. Ireland|

Citations:

PERUVIAN GUANO CO V DREYFUS BROTHERS 1892 AC 166

MUNRO V WILLMOTT 1948 2 AER 983

GREENWOOD V BENNETT 1972 3 AER 586, 1973 QB 195, 1972 3 WLR 691

BRITISH WAGON CO LTD V JOHN C SHORTT 1961 IR 164

TAYLOR V LAIRD 25 LJ EX 329

GENERAL & FINANCE FACILITIES LTD V COOKS CARS (ROMFORD) LTD 1963 2 AER 314

WHITELEY LTD V HILT 1918 2 KB 808

ROSENTHAL V ALDERTON & SONS LTD 1946 1 KB 374

RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT O.13 r6

RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT O.42 r6

RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT O.48 r1

HYMAS V ODGEN 1905 1 KB 246

1 Continuation of Judgment delivered by Mr. Justice Blayney on the 10th day of December 1986 .

2 I adjourned giving final judgment in this case and re-entered it for further hearing on the sole issue of what allowance should be made to the State as a condition of the Plaintiffs getting an Order for the return of the hoard.

3 At the resumed hearing, evidence was adduced by the State as to the value of the hoard at the date it was delivered to the National Meseum and as to its present value, and Mr. Liston submitted that the allowance should be the difference between the two which, on the evidence of his witness, Mr. Faulkner, would be in the region of £5 million. He submitte that the correct measure was a figure commensurate with the increase in value, which was the expression I had used in my judgment.

4 Mr. Ryan, on the other hand, submitted that the measure of a fair and just allowance was such as was necessary to do complete justice between the parties.

5 Having further considered the matter, the conclusion I have come to is that the measure which I had referred to in my judgment, namely, a figure commensurate with the increase in value, is not supported by the authorities.

6 In Peruvian Guano Company .v. Dreyfus Brothers 1892 A.C. 166,the case from which I cited an extract from the Judgment of Lord Macnaghten, one of the issues was whether the Defendants, who had wrongfully detained certain cargoes, the property of the Plaintiffs, were entitled to repayment of expenses incurred by them on account of freight or landing charges. It was held that they were. Lord Watson said at page 186:-

"The only issue before the House was whether certain outlays made by the company in relation to the cargoes in their possession ought to be disallowed to the company as expenditure incurred by them in prosecution of a legal wrong. All of their Lordships held that the terms of the consent order were sufficient to deprive the action of the company in making these outlays of any wrongful aspect, and to imply their right to be repaid".

7 The facts of the case were complex and it is not necessary to set them out in detail, but it is clear from this extract that they were very different from the facts I am concerned with here. All that was involved was outlay which did not in any way increase the value of the cargoes, and the right to be repaid derived from a Consent Order and not from any equitable principle. In view of this, the actual decision in the case is not of assistance in determining what is the correct measure to apply.

8 In Munro .v. Willmott 1948 2 All E.R. 989, a decision of the High Court in England, the Plaintiff, with the permission of the Defendant, the owner of an Inn, had left her car in the yard of the Inn, and it remained their for three years. At that stage it had become an obstruction and the Defendant wanted it removed. Being unable to trace the Plaintiff, he had repairs carried out to the car at a cost of £85 and then had it sold by auction for £105, less £5 commission. It was held that the value of the car at the date of Judgment was £120.

9 The Plaintiff sued in detinue and conversion. She recovered damages in the sum £35, being the value of the car at the date of the Judgment less the £85 which had been spent by the Defendant in having it repaired. In dealing with the damages for detinue, Lynskey J. said at page 986 H:-

"The measure of damages in detinue, it seems to me, must be similar, if not the same. At any rate, when I am asked to give damages in detinue for the value of a motor car as at today, and I find that a large sum of money has been spent on it for the purpose of making it even saleable, I must take that into account in assessing what is the value of the property the plaintiff has lost. [His Lordship considered the evidence as to the value of the car, and continued:] I assess the value of the car today at £120. On that, in my view, the defendant ought to be given credit for producing that result. It is as a result of the £73 he spent in repairs and renewals and as a result of his own expenditure of time, labour and materials in painting and renovating the outside of the car that that price was realisable at all. If he had not spent that money, I am quite satisfied this car would probably have realised today something in the nature of £20 or pound;25 as scrap. The result is that the defendant is entitled to credit, not from the point of view of payment for what he has done, but in order to arrive at what is the true value of the property which the plaintiff has lost. In my view, the value of the property which tea plaintiff has lost is approximately £35, and there will be judgment for that amount".

10 In Greenwood v Bennett 1972 3 All E.R. 586 , a decision of the Court of Appeal in England, the Court in an interpleader proceedings considered the right of a bona fide purchaser of a stolen car to be reimbursed by the owner, to whom the car was restored by the Order of the Court, for repairs which he had carried out to the car.

11 The car was owned by Bennett; was stolen by Searle and sold by him to Harper for £75 after it has been involved in an accident. Harper expended £226.47 on repairs to the car and sold it to a finance company who let in on hire purchase to Prattle for £450. The police traced the car to Prattle and they took possession of it. The Chief Constable took out an Interpleader Summons to determine to whom he should return it. The County Court Judge held that Bennett was entitled to possession of the car and Harper was not entitled to be reimbursed for the amount he had spent on repairs. On appeal it was held that Harper was entitled to be paid by Bennett the £226.47 he had expended on repairing the car.

12 The principal Judgment of the Court was delivering by Lord Denning M.R. Having set out the facts, he referred to what the legal position would have been if the police had not taken possession of the car but it had remained in Mr. Prattle's possession and...