Posted on Leave a comment

DCPLH v Caernarvon Cherry Pty Ltd – potential growers class action

Biteroit - Caernarvon Cherry

DCP Litigation Holdings is inviting expressions of interest from potential class action claimants against Caernarvon Cherry Pty Ltd ACN 111 047 191 (“Caernarvon”).

Caernarvon Cherry Pty Ltd is a fruit packing operator located at 474 Canobolas Rd, Orange NSW 2800 and predominantly packs Cherries and Apples under the Biteriot brand for Woolworths, Harris Farm and numerous export supermarket chains.

DCP Litigation Holdings is the assignee of the claims of a number of fruit growers from around the Nashdale, Mudgee and Orange / Mt. Canobolas fruit-growing regions.

What is a class action?

 

A class action is a permitted court action involving 7 or more claimants with substantially similar claims against the same defendant or defendant/s.

What’s the class action about?

 

We will be arguing, amongst other things, that:

  1. Caernarvon breached the Horticultural Code of Conduct which is a mandatory code within the fruit packing and wholesale sector ;
  2. Caernarvon provided misleading and deceptive fruit packing statistics and materially underpaid our assignees – causing loss ;
  3. In addition, Caernarvon overcharged our assignees for packing services, fruit picking services, packaging, transport, fruit handling, storage and /or otherwise.  In some cases, we have seen evidence where, Caernarvon charged our assignee grower up to almost 400 hours of labour in one summer season for the provision of a “person” / alleged staff member – this ‘person’ having no date of birth, no bank account, no tax file number, no superannuation membership, and no address … (the person actually is alleged to reside at the same address as Caernarvon, 474 Canobolas Rd – together with approximately 100 other alleged staff members) ;
  4. Moreover, Caernarvon at the time of the apparent overcharging of our grower assignee, also charged our grower assignee for the services of a “pay mistress”, Ms. Paula Neill formerly of Landseer St, RaglanAround the same time, Ms. Neill pleaded guilty to stealing the sum of $44,864.56 from a local charity known BINC ;
  5. Caernarvon failed to conduct its fruit growing operations in a workmanlike manner.

And in the process, Caernarvon caused our assignee loss and/or damage.

To be clear, we do not accuse Ms. Paula Neil of any criminal offence, however we do say that Caernarvon itself, with some 900 persons on its payroll did engage in misleading and deceptive conduct causing loss to our assignee, and we believe it is highly likely that a number of other fruit growers from the Orange and nearby locality also suffered loss (we have spoken to many).

Moreover, we say that the assignee is entitled to query the veracity of various expenses, which they have, and about which questions still remain outstanding (Caernarvon refusing or neglecting to account or answer questions).

DCP Litigation Holdings are inviting expressions of interest from other growers and suppliers to Caernarvon Cherry, to discuss the claims with potential class action fruit growers and claimants, who have had a similar detrimental financial experience with Caernarvon.  It will be our proposal to fund all litigation costs of all fruit growers accepted against Caernarvon and to share in any settlement payment or judgment of a relevant court.

How big does my claim have to be?

A class-action is ideally suited to large or small growers.
The size of the claim is not important.
The important aspects of the claim is that they are substantially similar to the what we say above that we will be arguing, i.e. they generally involve the supply of fruit from a grower to Caernarvon and some disagreement about entitlements to money (big or small).
The other important factor is that the defendant must be Caernarvon Cherry Pty Ltd of Orange, NSW.

How fruit growers can get involved?

Regardless of how big or small your claim may be, interested parties are asked to complete the below form to express interest.  Once we receive your enquiry we will email you also our class-action FAQ’s.

CCC class action

join
If you have any comments or information about Bernard & Fiona Hall, we’d love to hear from you including any documents via the instant chats below, through the below form or by phone on 1300-327123.

Posted on Leave a comment

Hillary v Owners Corporation – strata acoustic issues

(Work in progress, more details to follow on this page).

This project was not so much important in the content that it involved.  It was the analysis that it involved regarding a very simply set of works and the law’s requirements.

We bring, we think, a clear mind and thought processes to the task of solving your business, financial or legal problem – no matter how complex you think it may be?

 

Call anytime on 1300-327123.

To view related blogs, case notes or otherwise, follow the following category links and tags below.

Posted on Leave a comment

Fixtures

It might seem like a question with an obvious answer, but what is a fixture? What is a fitting?  And, what is equipment?

We are presently working on a project where our client is claiming title to commercial equipment.  The equipment was placed in a function space which features elsewhere in our blogs – current projects & past projects.  The land has recently been sold by the mortgagee in possession.

In the last couple of days these questions have arisen:

  • what is a fixture?
  • who can have title to it?
  • can a person abandone title to goods? and,
  • what is required to secure title to the fixture/s?

In this instance the equipment is commercial kitchen equipment.

Background

The purchaser from the mortgagee seems to be suggesting in correspondence that portable equipment is nevertheless a fixture.

The implied threat is to abandone the purchase from the mortgagee unless the secured lender, who owns the equipment, waives their title?

The answer to these questions is this. 

 

Analysis

Typically a fixture is a chattel which is annexed to land in such a way that it becomes ‘part of’ the land and ceases to be the personal property of the person who attached it.

Have a think about your workspace.  What are some chattels and what are fixtures and what might be fittings.

Take the kitchen sink for instance.  It’s probably quite impractical to remove that.  It would perhaps rip off the tiles in the process.  But what about for instance shelving.  Sure the shelves are screwed into the wall, and so it might be argued that they become part of the land.  But do they cease to be personal property?  And why were the shelves put there in the first instance?

These are all relevant questions in considering what are fixtures and what aren’t.  

We may discuss fixtures in further detail as this dispute is worked through.  

If you have any thoughts or comments or questions, please feel free to direct message me at:  mark@dcpartners.solutions – thank you.

14 August 2018