Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Tonga Law Reports

Vaitulala v Cook [2010] TongaLawRp 35; [2010] Tonga LR 1 (5 February 2010)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TONGA
Supreme Court, Nuku'alofa

CV 751/2007

Vaitulala

v

Cook anors

Ford CJ

14-17 December 2009; 5 February 2010

Tort – conversion of boat – boat sold to second defendant – claim proved – damages awarded

The plaintiff owned a 25 foot fibreglass boat which was anchored along the foreshore. He resided principally in the United States and he had left the boat in the care of Papa Mauala and his son 'Etuate. The plaintiff claimed that the first defendant unlawfully converted the boat to his own use and on-sold it to the second defendant who in turn sold it to the Free Church of Tonga, which was named as the third defendant. The plaintiff said that the first defendant was aware that the boat was in the care of the Maualas; that the second defendant became aware after he purchased the boat that it had belonged to the plaintiff and that the Free Church of Tonga also knew that the boat was in the care of the Maualas for a certain period of time. At the commencement of the hearing, counsel for the plaintiff withdrew the claim against the third defendant without any order as to costs. In his prayer for relief, the plaintiff sought the return of the boat which was currently in the possession of the Free Church of Tonga but, by abandoning his claim against the third defendant, he automatically ruled out any prospect of having the boat returned to him. In his alternative prayer for relief he sought damages in the sum of $10,000 for the market value of the boat at the time of the alleged conversion together with special damages in the sum of $5,000 for loss of use of the boat. The first defendant denied having any knowledge that the boat belonged to the plaintiff or, that at the time he took possession of the boat in May 2003, it was in the care of the Maualas. The second defendant also denied having any knowledge that the boat was owned by the plaintiff when he purchased it from the first defendant and he claimed to have been a bonafide purchaser for value.

Held:

1. Conversion was an act of deliberate dealing with a chattel in a manner inconsistent with another's right whereby that other was deprived of the use and possession of it. The essence of the wrong was the unauthorised dealing with the claimant's chattel so as to question or deny his title to it. There was no obligation on the finder of a chattel to take it to the true owner.

2. There were certain conflicts in the evidence but even accepting completely the first defendant's version of events and the fact that he acted in good faith in reliance on the advice given to him by a police officer, under well-established principles of law, those findings were insufficient to relieve the first defendant from liability in respect of the plaintiff's claim in conversion.