CITATION  QDC 87
JUDGE/S MOYNIHAN QC DCJ
In Porter Equipment Australia Pty Ltd v Barton Ventures Pty Ltd  QDC 299, Porter had sought and obtained orders that it was entitled to possession of equipment subject to a security interest, and entitled to seize it under s123. Porter had sold the equipment on retention of title terms to Tyremil Pty Ltd, and registered its interest under the PPSA. The equipment was on land owned by Barton, and was in the possession of Di Carlo, a person associated with Tyremil. Tyremil had failed to pay the purchase price for the equipment and gone in liquidation. The liquidator had not opposed return of the equipment, but Di Carlo refused to return it. The court had ordered Di Carlo to do so.
Due to the (undescribed) fault of Porter, those orders were set aside.
By new orders, the court again declared that Porter was entitled to the equipment, and that Di Carlo must return it, or alternatively that Porter was entitled to seize it under s123.
The summary of the pertinent points in this legal case update has been provided by Steve Pemberton, Lawyer and Consultant, as an extract from his digest of PPSA cases.