HANNAFORD v STEWART & ANOR - [2011] NSWSC 448 - NSWSC 2011 case summary — Zoe

NSWNSWSC

HANNAFORD v STEWART & ANOR

[2011] NSWSC 448

Supreme Court of NSW|2011-02-24|Before: Hall J, McCallum J

View original source

At a glance

Source facts

Court

Supreme Court of NSW

Decision date

2011-02-24

Before

Hall J, McCallum J

Source

Original judgment source is linked above.

Judgment (44 paragraphs)

[1]

Introduction 1The plaintiff, Mr Robert Hannaford, is a professional artist. In late 1999, the first defendant, Mr Bain Stewart, inquired if he would be prepared to paint the portraits of 10 indigenous women for a project that became known as Black Chicks Talking . Each of the women was said to have been successful in their respective fields of endeavour. 2These proceedings involve a question as to the ownership of the paintings. 3In circumstances detailed in this judgment, the paintings completed by Mr Hannaford were delivered by him into the possession of Mr Stewart. Mr Stewart is the executive director of a media and production company, Bungabura Productions Pty Limited ( "Bungabura" ). The company is the second defendant to the proceedings. 4Bungabura was set up in 1995. It was the primary vehicle through which Mr Stewart and Ms Leah Purcell (the de-facto partner of Mr Stewart and a director of Bungabura) undertook the promotion and the conduct of certain productions. Mr Stewart said that any profit derived from ventures conducted by Bungabura had been distributed, over the years, to Ms Purcell and himself. 5The 10 paintings produced by Mr Hannaford remained in the possession and control of Mr Stewart until an order was made by this Court on 23 March 2010. On that date, her Honour, Justice McCallum, made a number of orders, whereby the paintings were to be placed in the safe and secure custody and control of the specified art gallery and its manager until further order or agreement between the parties.

[2]

[3]

The issues in the proceedings 7The issues between the parties as pleaded and pursued at the hearing may be summarised as follows. 8Mr Hannaford's case is that he was approached in late 1999 by Mr Stewart who sought his assistance and support for a project. Mr Hannaford had not previously met Mr Stewart. The project as outlined to Mr Hannaford involved the interview of a number of well-known or "famous" indigenous Australian women for the purposes of a book to be entitled Black Chicks Talking ( "the project" ). 9It is part of Mr Hannaford's case that Mr Stewart indicated to him that the proceeds from the project would be applied for the charitable or benevolent purpose of raising funds for a mentoring fund for the benefit of indigenous Australian women. 10Mr Stewart's proposal, according to Mr Hannaford, was for him to undertake the painting of individual portraits of each of the women to be interviewed and to allow the inclusion of images or copies of the paintings in a proposed book to be entitled Black Chicks Talking and to permit the use of the paintings and the images of them for promotional purposes. 11Mr Hannaford's case is that he agreed with Mr Stewart to undertake the painting of the portraits without the payment to him of any money and to permit the portraits to be exhibited and used in the book. 12The "agreement" , which was said to have arisen out of discussions about the project, was an oral agreement. 13At the forefront of Mr Hannaford's case is the contention that he acted on the basis that ownership of the paintings would, as the creator of them, remain in him. Apart from some expenses towards the cost of painting materials and ancillary expenses, Mr Hannaford received no payment for the paintings. 14The defendants have refused to return the paintings to Mr Hannaford. In the Defence filed on behalf of Mr Stewart (and that of his company, Bungabura) it is pleaded, inter alia, that Mr Hannaford was engaged by Bungabura to paint the portraits on the basis that, at the conclusion of the project, it would be entitled to use the images of them in relation to the project and to have the ownership in the paintings. 15In the Defence, it was pleaded that it was a term of the agreement that (Defence, paragraph 9(d)):- "(d) The Plaintiff would receive payment for his painting materials and expenses for painting the portraits and kudos and accreditation from being associated with the Project." 16The defendants contended that it was not until a date in 2007 that Mr Hannaford first demanded or requested the return of the paintings. Mr Hannaford's evidence, on the other hand, was that he requested Mr Stewart to return the paintings in 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008. The defendants have not returned the paintings, maintaining that Bungabura "is the rightful owner" : Defence, paragraph 14(iii). 17The defence of both Mr Stewart and Bungabura has put in issue a number of specific allegations raised in the Further Amended Statement of Claim. The relevant factual disputes on these matters will, as necessary, be the subject of specific consideration below.

[4]

(1) The Further Amended Statement of Claim 18The proceedings were commenced in this Court by Statement of Claim filed on 10 December 2009. An Amended Statement of Claim was filed on 12 January 2011 and subsequently leave was granted to the plaintiff to file the Further Amended Statement of Claim which was filed on 17 February 2011. 19Mr Hannaford's case, both in the initial Statement of Claim and in the Further Amended Statement of Claim, pleaded a cause of action based upon the fact that, as the artist who painted the 10 paintings, he was and has remained the owner of them until the present time. It is common ground that Mr Hannaford was not commissioned to paint any of the portraits for an agreed amount of money (a commission). Mr Hannaford's case is that, in agreeing to paint the portraits for the project, he was motivated by the fact that Mr Stewart had told him that the proceeds of the project would go to support a mentoring scheme for young Aboriginal women. 20I turn to the claim as pleaded and particularised on behalf of Mr Hannaford. In paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Further Amended Statement of Claim, Mr Hannaford pleaded the factual matters involving the approach made by Mr Stewart to him seeking his assistance and his agreement to support the project in the circumstances as outlined to him by Mr Stewart. 21In paragraphs 10.3 and 10.4 of the Further Amended Statement of Claim, Mr Hannaford claimed that he:- "10.3. Is the sole owner of the paintings and frames; 10.4 Is entitled to immediate possession of the paintings and frames." 22Paragraph 11 of the Further Amended Statement of Claim recites the facts relied upon as to the requests that were made by Mr Hannaford to Mr Stewart for the return of the paintings and the refusal by the defendants to do so and the fact that the defendants have since retained possession and/or control of the paintings and frames. 23Having recited the relevant factual matters in paragraph 1 to 12 of the Further Amended Statement of Claim, Mr Hannaford in paragraphs 13 and 17 of the Further Amended Statement of Claim then seeks relief against each of the defendants in the following terms:- "1. an order requiring the defendant to deliver up and return to the plaintiff the 10 paintings and frames identified in paragraph 6 hereof; 2. damages for detinue or conversation; 3. costs."

[7]

(4) The Reply 29Application was made for leave to file a Reply on behalf of Mr Hannaford on 15 February 2011 in the course of final submissions (t.355). The Reply responded to the Defences and also sought to raise an alternative defence, namely, that if there was an agreement as alleged in the Defence, then such agreement was unenforceable on a number of specified bases. 30Mr Beech-Jones SC maintained strong opposition to the filing of the Reply, particularly at the stage of closing submissions (t.359). Mr Gregg, in his submissions, stated that, whilst the plaintiff's primary position was that there was no agreement as the defendants contended, in the event that the Court were to find otherwise, the plaintiff would then seek to rely upon an alleged misrepresentation by Mr Stewart and plead that any such agreement found to have existed was unenforceable on the grounds of vagueness and uncertainty as to its terms. Additionally, the plaintiff would also, in those circumstances, wish to rely upon an alleged repudiation of the agreement by the defendants and a rescission consequent thereon. 31In paragraph 4.1 of the Reply, the misrepresentation was said to relate to the purpose of the project, namely, that the proceeds of it would be used to fund a mentoring scheme for Aboriginal women or young Aboriginal women or young indigenous people. The Reply also sought to raise a contention of an absence of valuable consideration from the defendants (paragraph 4.2) and an implied repudiation, in particular, by reason of the defendants' alleged failure to pay money or reimburse the plaintiff, as had been promised (paragraph 4.4). The issue of repudiation was said to arise in respect of the request made by the plaintiffs for the portraits to be returned by the first defendant. 32In support of his opposition, Mr Beech-Jones made specific submissions on the issues of misrepresentation and rescission sought to be raised in the Reply. Although he stated that he was not in a position to identify specific aspects of actual prejudice if leave was granted to file the Reply so late in the proceedings, he submitted that there was real difficulty in retrospectively determining whether he would have conducted the case differently and pursued particular lines of examination with witnesses relevant to issues such as misrepresentation and rescission (t.419-420). 33In all the circumstances and having regard to the lateness of the application to file the Reply and, in particular, having regard to the matters raised by Mr Beech-Jones, I am of the opinion that leave should not be granted for the filing of the Reply. I proceed on that basis.

[9]

Two of the 10 portraits are produced at the hearing 36The plausibility of the defendants' case that Mr Hannaford agreed without question to give ownership in the paintings to Bungabura is to be assessed, at least in part, against the background of the magnitude of the task Mr Hannaford agreed to perform and as well the quality and the value of the work he produced. 37I have referred at [5] to the orders made by McCallum J on 23 March 2010 which had the effect of impounding the paintings in safe custody pending the disposition of the proceedings. 38On the first day of hearing, Mr G M Gregg of counsel, who appeared for Mr Hannaford, made application for a variation of the orders made by McCallum J so as to enable two of the 10 paintings to be released and brought to Court so that I would have the benefit of seeing the nature and quality of some of the original work the subject of the proceedings. 39Mr R T Beech-Jones SC, who appeared with Mr A L McAvoy of counsel on behalf of the defendants, opposed the application on the ground that it had not been established that there was no relevance to the pleaded issues in having the original portraits brought into Court, there being no denial that "they are fine paintings" and that photographic pictures of the portraits would be in evidence. The application, it was submitted, involved an apparent appeal to me to ascertain something about the paintings by viewing the original paintings, in effect, "as a quasi-art critic" . The application for variation of the orders, however, was granted. The original portraits of Kathryn Hay and Rachel Perkins were duly brought to Court. The photographic images of the paintings could not and do not adequately convey the undoubted quality, size and evident skill of the artist. Indeed, Mr Stewart, when asked in cross-examination about the portrait of Kathryn Hay, said on first seeing it "I thought it was beautiful" . 40There is no dispute that the original portraits both in size and scale (four feet hight and three feet wide) and quality even to the untrained eye are impressive indeed. So much has been properly conceded and it is accepted for the purpose of the proceedings that the paintings have significant value.

[13]

(2) Mr Hannaford's participation and interest in social justice issues and indigenous culture 49The evidence established Mr Hannaford's long-standing interest in social justice issues and Aboriginal culture, heritage and history. The evidence concerning his interest in the latter respect is relevant to his involvement in the project, insofar as it involved portrait painting of 10 well-known Aboriginal women. That was one aspect that gained Mr Hannaford's interest in the proposed project as outlined to him by Mr Stewart in late 1999. 50The evidence included the plaintiff's involvement in a research project in 1993 concerning the history of the Ngadjuri Tribe from the Riverton area, South Australia in which he has lived for many years. The research led to the writing of a book entitled "Ngadjuri" by Fran Knight and Del Pring. 51Prior to the initial approach in 1999 by Mr Stewart, Mr Hannaford had painted a number of well-known Aboriginal people. His evidence is that he had painted the portraits of the famous "black tracker" Jimmy Jones, Lowitja O'Donoghue, the inaugural chairperson of the Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Commission and the artists Jarinyanu David Downs and Linda Napaltjarrai. 52Mr Hannaford's evidence was to the effect that he had spent time with Aboriginal people in communities in the far west of South Australia. He has illustrated books made for Aboriginal school children and has spent time working in Aboriginal communities teaching children to read. 53In paragraph 24 of his affidavit sworn 14 May 2010, Mr Hannaford stated:- "24. My interest in Aboriginal culture and issues has been very strong all of my life and this is one of the reasons that I agreed to be involved in the 'Black Chicks Talking' project." 54There is, additionally, evidence of Mr Hannaford's participation in, what has been referred to as, "social justice projects" . There was also evidence that Mr Hannaford has undertaken work for a number of causes or projects without charging commissions. His evidence was that he had donated his time and allowed paintings produced by him to be used on loan in support of particular projects. One such project was the "Big hART Project" . It was described by Mr Hannaford as a project for under privileged children on the west coast of Tasmania. His involvement came from an approach by Mr Scott Rankin and, at his request, in 1994-1995 he travelled with Mr Rankin to Tasmania. He there painted 10 to 15 portraits of children from under privileged communities. 55In that project, the portraits produced by Mr Hannaford were used as part of an exhibition to raise money for the relevant community. Mr Hannaford also undertook some painting "live on-stage as part of a show" . The exhibition was later brought to Adelaide as part of the Adelaide Festival of Arts. 56Mr Hannaford's evidence was that he allowed his paintings to be used on loan for the purposes of the Big hART Project. They were later returned to him. 57Mr Hannaford's expenses were paid by Big HART, but he did not charge a fee for his participation or services and nor did he part with ownership of the paintings, which were duly returned to him. 58Mr Hannaford also participated in the "Sticky Bricks" project. The project was established for the support of underprivileged children living in high-rise apartments in the Redfern area of Sydney. Many of the residents were Aboriginal people. The project was a theatre production for which Mr Hannaford painted six portraits of local residents in connection with the project. The portraits were used in the production as part of an exhibition arranged by Mr Rankin. They were returned to Mr Hannaford at the end of the project. 59The above projects were but some of the charitable causes for which he has exercised his artistic skill.

[15]

(1) The initial discussions 65Mr Hannaford's evidence was that, in late 1999, he received a telephone call from Mr Stewart. Mr Stewart told him that he had been speaking to Mr Rankin. Mr Hannaford had not previously met Mr Stewart. 66According to Mr Hannaford, it was a fairly brief phone call and, as best as he recalled, Mr Stewart said words to the following effect:- "I am the Executive Director of Bungabura Productions and I was referred to you by Scott Rankin. I am managing a project initiated by my partner, Leah Purcell. Leah is writing a book that will be called 'Black Chicks Talking'. I am ringing to ascertain your interest in doing a series of 10 portrait paintings to be used in connection with the book. The book is to bring to public attention the issues faced by Aboriginal women. Leah is interviewing 9 other prominent Aboriginal women for the book. The paintings would be of those 9 women, and one of Leah, making ten in total. The paintings will be reproduced in the book, and will be used in promoting the book. The proceeds of the book will be used to set up a mentoring and support scheme for Aboriginal women." 67I note at this point that Mr Stewart in evidence did not dispute the first paragraph of Mr Hannaford's account set out in the preceding paragraph. However, he denied the last paragraph of Mr Hannaford's version of the conversation. 68According to Mr Hannaford, he responded to Mr Stewart's proposal to the following effect:- "I would be very interested in helping with that project." 69Mr Hannaford's evidence was that he asked for further information about it. There was no discussion of remuneration for his contribution in the event that he decided to do the paintings. He said Mr Stewart, in fact, did not offer any payment for his services and he did not request any payment. 70Mr Hannaford's evidence was that he was interested in helping out with the project because from what he understood Mr Stewart had said, he understood that the proceeds of the project would be going to support a mentoring scheme for young Aboriginal women. He said that the project was also aligned with his interest in painting indigenous Australians. 71Mr Hannaford said that after he agreed to paint the portraits, he travelled to Sydney for the purposes of painting some of them and others were painted in his studio. He set out in his affidavit details of the work undertaken in respect of the portraits in question (paragraphs 61 to 93 of his affidavit sworn 14 May 2010). 72Before coming to Sydney, Mr Hannaford painted the first portrait, being that of Kathryn Hay, which he said was painted in Adelaide. The evidence suggests that this painting was undertaken in late 1999, most likely in December 1999. Mr Hannaford then travelled to Sydney in that month and painted a further three portraits at the Bundarra Dance Studio at Walsh Bay in that month. 73In 2000, he painted a further three portraits in Sydney and another three portraits in Adelaide. The final portrait was of Deborah Mailman which was painted in mid to late 2000 at Government House in Sydney. 74Mr Hannaford stated that, by the end of 2000, he had completed all 10 portraits. His evidence was that each portrait was a valuable work, that the frames also carried a commercial value and that he received no payment for the paintings other than some expenses which I will again refer to below. 75The evidence established that Mr Hannaford did his own framing. Four guilt frames were purchased by him from Jarmans in Melbourne for approximately $800 in 1999 and he purchased Jarrah frames made by Gunter May in Adelaide. The latter frames were purchased by Mr Hannaford at an estimated cost of $600. Mr Hannaford's evidence was that he considered them to be a special set of paintings and he wanted to present them in the best way he could and, it was for the reason that he arranged for the framing of them. The total cost of framing the portraits was approximately $6,800. Some reliance was placed upon the cost incurred in framing the portraits as some evidence of the improbability that Mr Hannaford would simply have gifted the framed paintings to Mr Stewart or Bungabura. Mr Hannaford's case was that he did not receive payment for the frames. 76The plaintiff's case was that neither Mr Stewart nor Bungabura made any claim or assertion of ownership in respect of the paintings until 30 October 2008 when he responded by letter to his solicitors in Adelaide. It is at this point convenient to set out the terms of Mr Stewart's letter of that date, which was marked as Exhibit E. "BUNGABURA PRODUCTIONS PTY LTD 30 October, 2008 Franco Camatta Camatta Lempens Lawyers ... RE: Return of Works I refer to your letter dated 10 October 2008 wherein you (on behalf of your client Robert Hannaford) have requested Bungabura Productions Pty Ltd ('Bungabura') to return 10 artworks of Aboriginal women. The artworks referred to in your letter are works which Bungabura commissioned your client to paint some considerable time ago in 2000 and for which your client was paid valuable consideration. The works are the property of Bungabura and your client has no proprietary claim on the works whatsoever. We have confirmed this circumstance with our own legal representatives. Accordingly, if any legal proceedings are to be commenced [sic] Bungabura in respect to the works then such proceedings will be vigorously defended. We are also advised that should any proceeding be taken, that the proper jurisdiction for commencement of legal proceedings are the courts in New South Wales given all matters in regard to the works were undertaken in Sydney, New South Wales. In the event you do commence proceedings without further notice we reserve the right to bring this correspondence to the courts [sic] attention in regards to costs and jurisdiction. We trust this finalises the matter. Yours sincerely, Bain Stewart Managing Director Bungabura Productions" 77Mr Hannaford's evidence as to the circumstances in which he came to meet Mr Stewart was not disputed. In the Statement of Agreed of Facts and Issues (Exhibit A), it is stated:- "4. In or about late 1999, the first defendant was referred to the plaintiff by a mutual acquaintance, Mr Scott Rankin." 78Prior to Mr Stewart telephoning Mr Hannaford in late 1999, there had been no association between the two men. There was evidence, in cross- examination that Mr Hannaford had seen Mr Stewart on only one occasion during the course of the "Sticky Bricks" project in the Redfern area of Sydney. However, there was no evidence of any association or relationship between them preceding December 1999. Mr Hannaford said that he had never met Mr Stewart before late 1999. 79The fact that Mr Hannaford had no prior relationship or association with Mr Stewart is a circumstance to be taken into account in assessing the plausibility or likelihood that Mr Hannaford would undertake a substantial project of creating 10 portraits on the basis that, at the conclusion of the project, ownership in the paintings would pass to Mr Stewart or his company for no commission or other remuneration at all. 80In this latter respect, it is to be borne in mind that, on Mr Hannaford's evidence, which I accept in this regard, the project, as earlier indicated, involved a very considerable amount of time and work on his part, approximately equivalent to almost the number of paintings he would produce in any 12 month period. 81In accordance with the Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues, following discussions between Mr Hannaford and Mr Stewart, the plaintiff set about producing the paintings. Paragraph 7, 8 and 9 of the Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues are in the following terms:- "7. As a result of these discussions and throughout the remainder of 1999 and into 2000, the plaintiff painted portraits of ten well known Aboriginal women (the Paintings), as follows:- a. Leah Purcell; b. Tammy Williams; c. Rachel Perkins; d. Deborah Mailman; e. Lisa Grazer-Gooda; f. Sharon Finnan; g. Cilla Malone; h. Kathryn Hay; i. Roseanna Angus; and j. Frances Rings. 8. All the completed portraits were delivered by the plaintiff to, on the plaintiff's case, the first and second defendants, and on the defendants' case, the second defendant, by late 2000. 9. The last of the Paintings was completed by the plaintiff before the end of 2000."

[16]

(2) Mr Hannaford's motivation 82Mr Stewart said he told Mr Hannaford that the paintings would be used in the book and there was the possibility of a play and a documentary where each such project would leverage off the other. Mr Stewart said that, in effect, he spoke of the advantage of the project to Mr Hannaford:- "This will offer great profile and publicity for you. There will be great interest in the exhibition and it is likely to be seen by people who wouldn't often see your art" . 83According to Mr Stewart, Mr Hannaford responded:- "This is a good thing for me to be part of this type of fantastic project." 84In cross-examination, Mr Hannaford said he could not specifically recall Mr Stewart making these statements as to the suggested advantages of the project to him as painter. He said "Not specifically, no, but he could well have said that as well" (t.196). 85The evidence establishes that, by 1999, Mr Hannaford had gained a recognition as "one of Australia's foremost portrait artists" : Robert Hannaford Natural Eye by John Neylon, 2007, Arts SA. In that work, references are made to specific works produced by Mr Hannaford both before and after 1999. Those references were confirmed by his own evidence in these proceedings. 86In the abovementioned book, Exhibit C in the proceedings, the following is recorded at p.22):- "Hannaford's portrait skills had been in steady demand from the early 1990's. Portraits of Australian celebrities - Dame Joan Sutherland (commissioned 1974) and Sir Donald Bradman (commissioned 1972) were exceptions to the many portraits of legal and medical figures, academics, vice-chancellors, school principals and business leaders. In 1990, he won the Doug Moran National Portrait Prize with a painting entitled 'The Bill', 1990. The associated publicity plus the evident appeal of the quintessentially outback character portrayed, launched Hannaford into the national arena ..." 87The above, as I have indicated, is well supported by other evidence given in the proceedings. Mr Hannaford's interest in producing portraits of prominent Indigenous Australians is referred to both in Exhibit C, in Mr Rankin's evidence and in Mr Hannaford's own evidence. 88Mr Hannaford's evidence was that he was not at all interested in gaining publicity from supporting the project. He said that, at the time, he was too busy with his work (t.196). I accept his evidence in that regard. It is clear from the evidence that, by 1999, Mr Hannaford was a well-known and acclaimed professional artist who had neither a need nor a desire for publicity. There is no suggestion that he had involved himself previously in giving his time and creative skills to support charitable causes for publicity reasons. The evidence which established that he had had a history of acting for what he saw to be worthwhile causes in a selfless manner was not challenged in any respect. 89In cross-examination, Mr Hannaford displayed a preparedness in evidence to make concessions. He, for example, was not prepared to deny that he could have said "This is a good thing for me to be part of this fantastic type of project" or that Mr Stewart could have said, "Look, we don't have any money to pay you for the paintings. What we can offer is the accreditation, the publicity and the profile" . He also accepted that Mr Stewart may also have said, "The only fee we can offer you is to be part of the project and just to get your work out there" (t.196). 90Mr Hannaford said that Mr Stewart may have said that he could not afford to pay him for doing that paintings. He said in evidence "... I was quite happy to accept that ..." (t.196). 91Mr Hannaford, however, stated (affidavit sworn 14 May 2010):- "183. The suggestion that Stewart was putting some form of commercial proposition to me as distinct from inviting me to support a charitable project is simply untrue. I cannot now recall whether there was any discussion to the effect that I might benefit from the project in terms of 'profile and publicity'. I had a significant profile in the art world at that stage. I was not seeking publicity from the 'Black Chicks Talking' project." 92I closely observed Mr Hannaford in the course of his evidence. Having done so and having read the transcript of his evidence, I have concluded that, in the relevant sense, he was an impressive witness. 93Whilst it was part of Mr Stewart's case that he offered Mr Hannaford the "benefits" of accreditation, publicity and "kudos" , it was properly recognised in the final written submissions of the defendants that such an "offer" to an established professional artist such as Mr Hannaford would have been effectively devoid of substance. In discussing the question as to whether any valuable consideration had been exchanged to obtain Mr Hannaford's agreement to paint the portraits, it was observed in the submissions:- "13. In this case, it may be accepted that the plaintiff was not subjectively motivated to paint the paintings and part with ownership by reason of any desire on his part to be paid for his painting materials or to obtain kudos and accreditation for being associated with the project ..." (Defendants' Outline of Submissions) 94As earlier noted, Mr Hannaford's account of the initial discussion includes a statement he attributed to Mr Stewart:- "The proceeds of the book will be used to set up a mentoring and support scheme for Aboriginal women." 95Mr Stewart repeatedly denied in evidence having made such a statement. 96An obvious question in the proceedings is what rational explanation was there on the evidence as to why Mr Hannaford would agree with Mr Stewart, then effectively a stranger to him, to undertake a substantial project without remuneration, whether in the form of commissions or otherwise? Mr Stewart knew through Mr Rankin that Mr Hannaford had an interest in Aboriginal culture and that he had undertaken artistic projects for what might be characterised as "good" or "charitable" causes without asking or expecting payment of commissions. Mr Hannaford's evidence was:- "50. I was interested in helping out the 'Black Chicks Talking' project because I understood from what Mr Stewart said that it was to support a mentoring scheme for Aboriginal women. The project was also aligned with my interest in painting indigenous Australians." 97The defendants' written submissions did not put Mr Hannaford's motivation in issue:- "13. ... It seems that his personal or subjective motivation to undertake the paintings was that he considered the project was worthwhile and on his case, because he believed it might lead to funding for a mentoring program ..." (Defendants' Outline of Submissions)

[21]

(c) The letter of 16 December 1999 108It was submitted for the defendants that, as between Mr Hannaford's recollection of events of 1999 and Mr Stewart's recollection, the above letter "is neutral" . I respectfully disagree. I will refer to particular aspects of the letter in the discussion below. 109Mr Hannaford explained in his affidavit sworn on 10 January 2011 the circumstances in which he found the letter that was written by Mr Stewart to him dated 16 December 1999 on Bungabura's letterhead. He said that when he was looking through the book "Spirit of Arnhem Land" at his home, he found the letter inside the book, it seems, some time at or before August 2010. The book had been given to him by Mr Stewart. He said that the letter contained a suggestion for the sale by auction of the paintings. He said he did not ever agree to auction the portraits and that no auction or arrangements made for an auction took place. 110Mr Stewart accepted, in cross-examination, that the letter was written after Mr Hannaford had commenced painting the portraits as indicated by the reference in the letter to "It has been a great pleasure and a privilege to watch you paint this last week" (t.281). This is consistent with the cheque butt dated 11 December 1999 concerning expenditure on art supplies. 111Mr Hannaford said he did not respond to the letter from Mr Stewart. However, he said that, on a later date, he received an offer from Mr Stewart to purchase the paintings for $10,000. Mr Stewart disputed Mr Hannaford's evidence to that effect. Mr Hannaford said he rejected the offer. 112In his supplementary affidavit sworn on 10 January 2011, Mr Hannaford stated that it was after having sworn his affidavit of 14 May 2010, that he found the letter from Mr Stewart dated 16 December 1999 in the book "Spirit of Arnhem Land" . A copy of it was exhibited to his affidavit (Exhibit "RH2"). The letter was in the following terms:- "December 16, 1999 TO: Robert Hannaford RE: Black Chic's [sic] Talking & Bungabura Productions In this letter I wanted to achieve the aim of informing you, in writing, of your role and obligations with the project Black Chic's [sic] Talking. As you know you are painting upwards of 9 Indigenous Women for this book and possibly a documentary project which will as far as your [sic] concerned end up as an exhibition of your work via the book launch and the art auction. Proceeds from this auction will go towards a mentoring fund for young Indigenous people in rural, regional and marginalised Australia. Bungabura Productions can guarantee a commission of $10,000 (Aust) to paint these 9 women and a percentage of the sale of the portraits at auction. We haven't determined what that percentage might be, but I would figure around 10 - 15%. I will be meeting with our sponsorship consultant on this project on Monday and can tell you a whole lot more in about 1 weeks time. At some stage we will organise an agreement spelling out things like what exactly the portraits will be doing in relation to the book and potential exhibitions, and we are very excited at the prospect of the co-authors portrait of Leah Purcell being entered in the 2000 Archibald Prize. I will touch bases with the prize people and find out guidelines before we enter so we don't breach any through the book and documentary. We are thrilled you are a part of this project Alf, and it has been a great pleasure and a privilege to watch you paint this last week. I will keep you abreast of all that is happening on this project as things move along and will work closely with you to coordinate the next lot of paintings early in 2000. We have spoken about at least one of the paintings where we might have to go overseas to do it. If so you will know well in advance of that happening and if you are available. Have a Merry Xmas Alf, and enjoyable New Years Eve and a marvelous [sic] 2000 and I will be in touch with you soon. Yours Sincerely, Bain Stewart Executive Producer, Black Chic's [sic] talking General Manager, Bungabura Productions" 113There are a number of matters to be observed about the letter, in particular:- (1) The date of the letter (16 December 1999) is some evidence as to the approximate time that Mr Stewart initially approached Mr Hannaford about the project. (2) The reference to "a mentoring fund for young Indigenous people in rural, regional and marginalised Australia" is consistent with Mr Hannaford's evidence that, in the initial project discussions he had with Mr Stewart, the notion of the establishment of a mentoring fund was mentioned. (3) The reference to a guarantee of payment of $10,000 to "paint these nine women" (described as a commission) together with an unspecified percentage of a sale of the portraits is noteworthy. Insofar as it raised possible elements for a "deal" on the project, it tends to indicate that no final or concluded agreement had been reached as at the date of the letter. (4) The statement "At some stage we will organise an agreement ..." is further evidence pointing to the fact that no final agreement had been concluded as at 16 December 1999. (5) There is an implication that, as at the date of the letter, Mr Stewart was addressing Mr Hannaford on the footing that, as the artist of the portraits to be painted, Mr Hannaford's agreement to any sale of the portraits was required. (6) The letter is significant in that it directly contradicts a number of matters to be found in Mr Stewart's affidavits. He was asked about the matter (t.314):- "Q. You swore a number of affidavits making definite assertions inconsistent with the terms of that letter, didn't you? A. Yes." 114The letter of 16 December 1999 is relevant to Mr Stewart's evidence in that, in his first affidavit, he made no reference to any discussion about a mentoring scheme or fund. After having seen Mr Hannaford's affidavit to which the letter was exhibited, his evidence was that there had been some discussion about a fund or scheme. I will return to this aspect below. 115Mr Stewart responded to Mr Hannaford's affidavit sworn on 10 January 2011 and, in particular, in relation to the letter of 16 December 1999. 116Mr Stewart said that he did not recall preparing or sending the letter but accepted that he did so. 117He referred to paragraph 30 of his first affidavit in which he had indicated that he did not suggest or discuss with Mr Hannaford that the project would provide funding for an Indigenous women's mentoring programme. He then stated:- "28. ... Having read the 16 December Letter, I see that it refers to using the proceeds from selling the paintings towards a 'mentoring fund for young Indigenous people in rural, regional and marginalised Australia'. I do not recall discussing a proposal of that kind with Robert Hannaford but agree that it was likely that it was discussed at some point as it mentioned. I cannot recall who might have raised it first." 118In paragraph 29 of his affidavit, he referred to paragraph 33 of his first affidavit and stated:- "... At the time I swore paragraph 33 what is stated there was my best recollection of what happened. Having read the 16 December Letter, I accept that at the time I must have seriously considered a proposal to auction the paintings. I cannot recall whether the proposal was first raised by me or by Mr Hannaford, but the proposal was later discarded."

[22]

(d) Mr Hannaford's preliminary letter 119Mr Hannaford's evidence that the early discussions of the project between Mr Stewart and himself had been connected with the concept of a mentoring scheme or fund receives some support in the preliminary draft for a letter which he said he wrote and sent to Mr Stewart in response to an offer for the paintings of $10,000 made by Mr Stewart in late 2000. A copy of the "preliminary draft" is Exhibit G (reproduced in paragraph 119 of Mr Hannaford's affidavit sworn on 14 May 2010). The draft in Mr Hannaford's handwriting was produced at the hearing. It consisted of a single page in an exercise book Mr Hannaford used to make notes. The preliminary draft addressed to Mr Stewart was in the following terms:- "Dear Bain I was a little worried after reading your letter that $10,000 is to be paid to me and Bungabura is in total control of future monies etc. As you remember, our initial discussions were vague on this point. I do remember you saying that more money would be coming my way depending on what happened to the paintings. I went into this project because I believed in it. I would not like to take money away from the mentoring. I would (as I have always told you) do it for nothing if it furthered the possibilities for Aboriginal kids - but ..." (emphasis added) 120In his affidavit sworn 14 May 2010, Mr Hannaford stated at paragraph 120 that he did not have a copy of the final version of the letter. However, he stated that he recalled that in the final version he rejected Mr Stewart's offer to buy the paintings for $10,000 but agreed that he and Ms Purcell would continue to use the paintings for the purpose of promoting the book and the various other media aspects of the project. 121He said in that affidavit that he received Mr Stewart's letter offering the amount of $10,000 for the 10 portraits in late 2000, but that he had been unable to locate the letter. He said that he wrote in response to Mr Stewart's letter soon afterwards. He said the letter was handwritten, that he did not keep a copy of it and that he sent the original to Mr Stewart. He said that the preliminary draft reflected some, but not all, of what was contained in the final version of the letter sent to Mr Stewart. 122Mr Beech-Jones submitted that the handwritten preliminary draft was, in fact, referrable to the letter of 16 December 1999, which included reference to the amount of $10,000. It was submitted that, on analysis, the note supported Mr Stewart's case. Reliance was placed on the reference in the letter of 16 December 1999 to a proposal by which the balance of the proceeds of the auction would be divided up between a mentoring fund for Aboriginal youth and Mr Hannaford. It was submitted that Mr Hannaford's note refers to "tak[ing] money away from mentoring" which is what would occur if there was an auction and a division of the proceeds. 123Additionally, it was submitted by Mr Beech-Jones that the form of mentoring programme referred to was the same. The letter of 16 December 1999 referred to a mentoring scheme for "Aboriginal youth" and Mr Hannaford's response refers to the "possibilities for Aboriginal kids" . 124It was also submitted for the defendants that the timeframe in Mr Hannaford's affidavit suggested that his response was drafted around the time that the concept of an auction was being considered. 125Accordingly, it was submitted that all of these matters strongly pointed to Mr Hannaford having written the note in December 1999 while considering the 16 December 1999 letter. 126In response, Mr Gregg took issue with the submissions, stating that Mr Hannaford's recollection was that the draft note and the letter of 16 December 1999 were clearly distinct and that he did not reply to the letter of 16 December 1999 nor discuss it with Mr Stewart. 127Mr Gregg submitted in oral submissions that the letter Mr Hannaford said he sent rejecting the offer of $10,000 was later in time and that it contained the phrase "Bungabura is in total control of future monies" which is not to be found in the letter of 16 December 1999. 128It is difficult on the evidence to be satisfied that there was a letter written by Mr Stewart offering to buy the paintings and that the preliminary draft letter, which was developed into a final letter and sent by Mr Hannaford by way of response to an offer by Mr Stewart, was, as contended for in the plaintiff's case. The lapse of time and the absence of any other evidence on the subject leaves open the possibility that Mr Hannaford's recollection was confused with the letter of 16 December 1999. Accordingly, although I do not make an affirmative finding that a final letter in terms of the preliminary draft was sent to Mr Stewart as a response to a written offer to purchase, I nonetheless consider it is relevant evidence in the respects referred to in the next paragraph. 129The preliminary draft does provide some confirmation of the following:- (1) The fact that the project discussions between Mr Hannaford and Mr Stewart had addressed a charitable concept for the project, namely, a mentoring concept. (2) Mr Hannaford's interest in the project was related to Mr Stewart's indication that the proceeds from the project were to be applied towards a mentoring fund. (3) The accuracy and truthfulness of Mr Hannaford's account in his first affidavit as to the reason he agreed to enter into the project. It accordingly confirms Mr Hannaford's evidence that he was not entering into the project on the basis of it being a commercial venture, ie, "I would (as I have always told you) do it for nothing if it furthered the possibilities for Aboriginal kids" . I do not consider any significance attaches to the reference to "Aboriginal kids" rather than to "Aboriginal women" , as was suggested in cross-examination (t.146). Mr Hannaford's evidence was "... I always had that concept in my mind of mentoring because we had spoken of it from the beginning" (t.147).

[23]

(a) The Black Chicks Talking project 130According to Mr Stewart, his partner, Ms Purcell, conceived the idea of interviewing a number of accomplished indigenous Australian women in relation to their background, achievements and outlook on life. He said that Ms Purcell undertook some interviews of the women to be the subject of the portraits. In some instances, the interviews took place whilst they were posing for the portraits. 131The series of paintings produced by Mr Hannaford were launched at Dubbo Regional Gallery on 20 January 2001. 132In the period 2000 to 2001, Mr Stewart said that Ms Purcell wrote a book based upon her discussions with the women who had been the subject of the paintings. In due course, she signed a publishing agreement with Hodder Headline Australia and the book Black Chicks Talking was published in 2002, reprinted in 2003. 133He said that in the period during 2000 and 2001, a documentary film was produced which premiered at the Tribeca Film Festival in New York in May 2002. It had its Australian premiere at the 2002 Sydney Film Festival. He said the book Black Chicks Talking was officially launched with the Australian premiere of the documentary at the film festival. 134In 2002, a "CD" of the music for the documentary which had been recorded in April 2002 was released. 135A stage play entitled Black Chicks Talking premiered in the Optus Playhouse for the Queensland Performing Arts Centre on 12 December 2002. 136He said that, at various points from January 2002 the portraits painted by Mr Hannaford were used as part of the launch and marketing of others parts of the project. The last public exhibition of the paintings that he could recall occurred in December 2002 at the Queensland Performing Arts Centre at which time the play of Black Chicks Talking was being staged. However, it appears that there was at least one further exhibition in 2003. 137Mr Stewart said that, in 2003, the portraits were used at various times "as part of a 'pitch' for further spin offs from the 'Black Chicks Talking' project" . He said that Bungabura prepared a proposal entitled "Touring museum exhibition and schools arcade and three year education programme" for Black Chicks Talking . He said that images of the portraits were used in the "pitch" . 138In 2003, the paintings were exhibited at the Queensland Performing Arts Centre after which they were sent to Sydney in anticipation of them being exhibited at the offices of the Australia Council for the Arts. That, however, did not eventuate and Mr Stewart arranged for the paintings to be returned to a storage facility at the Queensland Performing Arts Centre. Subsequently, they were retained by him and stored in his own premises in purpose built crates.

[24]

(b) Mr Stewart's early contacts with Mr Hannaford 139In his affidavit affirmed 5 February 2010, Mr Stewart outlined the background and circumstances leading to his dealings with Mr Hannaford. He said that in 1999 he became aware from speaking to Mr Rankin of the possibility of approaching Mr Hannaford to undertake the portrait project. He said (at paragraph 11):- "... I recall that Mr Rankin told me that Mr Hannaford was an excellent portraits painter, that he had assisted him in a project which had involved interviewing disadvantaged youth in Tasmania and that it had been interesting to have a process of interviewing while they were posing for a portrait." 140Mr Rankin is a writer and creative director. He and another founded Big hART, a not for profit organisation. Mr Rankin said in his affidavit (paragraph 24) that when he first discussed the Black Chicks Talking book with Mr Stewart, the following conversation took place:- "Bain: The proceeds from the 'Black Chicks Talking' book will go towards setting up a mentoring and support programme for indigenous Australian women. We want to get as much support for this project as possible Me: Robert Hannaford might be prepared to support the project. He has supported a few of our Big hART projects by letting us use his artwork. He actually volunteered his help because of our involvement in community charity projects. Robert is a very famous artist and is very well respected in the community. His paintings are quite valuable. He has been involved in three of our projects so far. Bain: A portrait by a famous artist such as Robert would be expensive. Me: Neither of us would really be able to afford him but he might agree to let you use his paintings for the 'Black Chicks Talking' project at no charge. He would help the project to punch above its weight in terms of profile, audience and media attention. Bain: I agree I would be really excited to have him involved in the project." 141I note that Mr Rankin, in this conversation, is consistent with Mr Hannaford's evidence to the effect that Mr Stewart raised with him the fact that proceeds from the Black Chicks Talking book would go to supporting a mentoring and support programme. 142Mr Stewart said that he spoke, firstly, to Mr Hannaford on the phone and some time later he said he travelled to Sydney for other work and had a meeting with Mr Hannaford over dinner at a restaurant. He said he there discussed the idea of painting the women subjects as an interviewing technique and various proposals for the project. In particular, he said (affidavit affirmed 5 February 2010 at paragraph 14):- "We will use your paintings in the book, but we are also going to be looking at getting a play up and a documentary is happening. The idea is we will be able to leverage each project off another and keep it moving along." 143He said that:- "This will offer great profile and publicity for you. There will be great interest in the exhibition and it is likely to be seen by people who wouldn't often see your art." 144He said that Mr Hannaford responded, "This is a good thing for me to be part of this type of fantastic project" . 145There is a significant conflict in the evidence between Mr Hannaford and Mr Stewart as to whether there was reference in the early discussions held before the first portrait was painted to proceeds from the book (in which images of the paintings were to be reproduced) would go to a mentoring programme for benevolent or charitable purposes. Mr Hannaford was adamant that it was put to him on that basis. Mr Stewart, on the other hand, maintained that that matter had not been the subject of discussions either with Mr Rankin (t.232-233) or with Mr Hannaford. The conflict on this material fact, accordingly, is one between Mr Stewart, on the one hand, and Mr Hannaford and Mr Rankin, on the other. Mr Rankin's version has been reproduced in paragraph [140] above. 146Mr Stewart in his affidavit of 5 February 2010 said he did not say that the proceeds of the book would be used to set up a mentoring and support scheme for Aboriginal women. He repeatedly maintained throughout his evidence, including his evidence in cross-examination, that there was no discussion that the proceeds would be used for such a scheme. 147The only contemporaneous document bearing on this issue is in Mr Stewart's letter of 16 December 1999. In it, Mr Stewart referred to the concept of proceeds from an auction of the paintings going towards a "mentoring fund for young Indigenous people ..." . Whilst that was a reference to proceeds from the prospective auction of the paintings and not proceeds from the sale of the book, it nonetheless provides some contemporaneous evidence consistent with Mr Hannaford's evidence that Mr Stewart had referred, in the early discussions, to a mentoring scheme being the matter he said that attracted his interest. 148Mr Stewart asserted that, in effect, the Black Chicks Talking book was in the nature of a commercial project or "enterprise for Bungabura" (t.233) in which it was hoped that a profit would be made. He said that Bungabura received a $50,000 advance from the publishers. He said that there were additional royalties of the order of $3,000 to $5,000 in addition to the $50,000 advance. He later gave evidence which adjusted these amounts. 149He subsequently said that the profit to Bungabura from the book was $35,000. When asked whether those proceeds went to any type of charitable purpose, Mr Stewart responded, "It went towards the Black Chicks Talking project to keep developing them and working on them. And to other Bungabura projects" (t.235). 150Mr Stewart agreed in cross-examination that when he first contacted Mr Hannaford, he spoke to him about the Black Chicks Talking book and not the Black Chicks Talking project (t.237). He also agreed in cross-examination that he said to Mr Hannaford in his initial call to him words to the effect, "I'm ringing to ascertain your interest in doing a series of 10 portrait paintings for reproduction in the book" (t.239). 151I will refer below to the letter of 16 December 1999 and the change in Mr Stewart's evidence concerning the mentoring and support scheme.

[26]

(6) A change in Mr Stewart's evidence 156In evidence in chief and in cross-examination, Mr Stewart said that he would not have referred to a mentoring or support scheme for Aboriginal women in the initial discussion with Mr Hannaford. It was put to him in cross-examination (t.242):- "Q. Mr Stewart, whether or not it was ever part of it, part of your intentions for Bungabura to pass on any of the profits to a mentoring scheme, I suggest to you that that is the substance of what you said to Mr Hannaford in this conversation? A. There was never a mentorship scheme part of the Bungabura book." 157Notwithstanding the repeated reference in evidence by Mr Stewart that there had been no mention whatsoever of any payments from the project being directed towards a mentoring scheme, Mr Stewart, for the first time, acknowledged that, in light of his letter of 16 December 1999 (which, in circumstances outlined above, came to light after Mr Stewart had made his first affidavit), there may have been reference to a mentoring scheme in his discussions with Mr Hannaford. In cross-examination, he was asked (t.285):- "Q. And you in addition you say there was no mention of a mentoring scheme in connection with Black Chicks Talking by you in any conversation with Mr Hannaford; correct? A. That telephone call and at that initial dinner meeting that we had there was [sic] no discussions about the mentoring scheme, but having a look at this letter here now, which I didn't know that I had written or had, there's talk of a mentoring scheme here, so Robert and I may have spoken about that when I spoke about proceeds of an auction would go to him and to a mentoring scheme." 158Mr Stewart's evidence was that, at the conclusion of the meeting at the hotel restaurant, Mr Hannaford shook hands and the "deal" was then done. He maintained that the agreement made that day was not later varied by any further discussion between him and Mr Hannaford (t.286). 159I will return to Mr Hannaford's and Mr Stewart's evidence on the conflict between them as to whether the proposed project was put to Mr Hannaford upon the basis that a mentoring scheme was to be established.

[27]

(7) A "good deal" 160If Mr Stewart is to be accepted, it is clear that the "deal" he made with an accomplished artist was an extremely favourable one for the defendants. In cross-examination, Mr Stewart acknowledged it as such:- "Q. On your case, Mr Stewart, you had reached not only an agreement with Mr Hannaford by the time of this dinner meeting before, you say, he had started to paint any of the meetings but you had made an incredible bargain, hadn't you? A. I hadn't made an agreement before we had the meeting. We made the agreement at the meeting. Q. I didn't say before you had the meeting. A. I thought you did. Q. I will put it again to you. I don't want you confused about it. On your case the oral agreement was reached at the meeting before Mr Hannaford painted the first portrait? A. Sorry, say that again? Q. On your case Mr Hannaford and you orally agreed the terms on which he would paint the portraits before he painted Kathryn Hay that's just to your right in court sitting there? A. Yes. Q. And I suggest to you that on your case you had struck an incredible bargain with Mr Hannaford? A. I realise it was a good deal that I had struck with Alf. That's my job as an indigenous independent producer, I strike deals all the time with all sorts of people, and I did understand that it was a wonderful thing that had happened at that meeting and it was a good deal. Q. And following that agreement, the wonderful deal, as you say, Mr Hannaford appeared to be carrying out his end of the bargain; correct? A. Yes. ... Q. Were you at this stage familiar with Mr Hannaford's work? Had you done any research and looked at any of the images of his past work? A. I had looked at some of his images. I hadn't done a huge amount of research, but I had seen some of his works of Prime Ministers and other prominent Australians, some of his work." 161The reference to "Alf" in Mr Stewart's answer is a name Mr Stewart said he came to use in relation to Mr Hannaford. 162I will deal later in this judgment with the absence of a rational explanation for Mr Hannaford agreeing to give the paintings to Bungabura.

[29]

(1) Acquiring ownership in the portraits without payment or other consideration 168The essential elements of the case for the defendants may be shortly stated as follows:- (1) Mr Hannaford agreed to paint the 10 portraits without any financial benefit to him for his time and effort in creating them. (2) He agreed to give up any rights he might have in the images of the portraits so that they could be used in the Black Chicks Talking book. (3) Mr Hannaford agreed that the portraits would be available for use throughout the Black Chicks Talking project, without any fee or other remuneration. (4) That on completion of the project, Bungabura would acquire ownership in all 10 paintings without cost to Bungabura. In other words, Mr Hannaford would relinquish property in the portraits in favour of Bungabura without any obligation on Mr Stewart or Bungabura to pay commission(s) or any other form of remuneration to Mr Hannaford. 169As to the first of the above elements, I have referred above to Mr Hannaford's evidence, which I accept, that he agreed to produce the paintings without charge on the understanding and on the basis that the proceeds from the project, including in particular the book, would go to support a mentoring and support scheme for young Aboriginal women. 170The second, third and fourth elements of the defendants' case are devoid of a rational explanation as to why Mr Hannaford, an accomplished artist, would agree to give the paintings to strangers (Mr Stewart and his company) for no return or benefit. Additionally, at the time of the early discussions, there existed only a prospect rather than the actuality that the project would be successful and that Mr Hannaford was content to act on the bases set out in paragraph [168] on the basis that he would be paid for his expenses in producing the paintings. 171As earlier noted, Mr Stewart's evidence was that he specifically brought up the issue of ownership of the paintings with Mr Hannaford. I will reproduce again for convenience here the relevant part of his account:- "Bungabura wants to keep the paintings at the end of the project. We are the guardians of the girls' stories and they agreed to do this for Bungabura, Leah and I. As an exhibition and part of the overall project they needed to be controlled and managed by the indigenous stakeholders in the project." 172According to Mr Stewart's account, no clarification or questions were raised by Mr Hannaford to this statement. According to Mr Stewart, Mr Hannaford simply replied to the effect "okay" . 173Mr Hannaford, both in his affidavit evidence and in cross-examination, strongly disputed Mr Stewart's evidence set out in paragraph [171] above stating (t.196):- "He certainly did not say that to me. I would have remembered that. That would have stood out in my mind like a beacon." 174It was then put to Mr Hannaford (t.196-197):- "Q. And I suggest that when you later signed that receipt on 19 December you did so because you had understood that you had already discussed with Mr Stewart the fact that Bungabura would keep the paintings? A. Are you suggesting I understood that? Q. Yes? A. You are quite wrong, sir." 175It was then put to Mr Hannaford (t.197):- "Q. And you said to him, I suggest, 'Would I be able to use images in catalogues and books about my work?' And he said, 'Yes, Alf'? A. No, I would never have had to ask him for use of my own work. Q. You said, 'Could I get access to the portraits to exhibit and submit for prizes?' And he said 'Yes'? A. No. Q. At some point he said, 'We will make sure you are accredited at all times as the artist with all the media and the PR associated with the subjects.' He said that? A. No". 176A number of questions arise in respect of Mr Stewart's evidence as to the basis he said he identified to Mr Hannaford for Bungabura requiring ownership in the paintings. They include at least the following:- (1) What was intended to be conveyed by Mr Stewart's claimed reference to being "guardians of the girls stories" . (2) What bearing could the "girls' stories" have on a series of portraits that were to be publicly exhibited and promoted and imaged in the Black Chicks Talking book? (3) What factors or matters determined or required that the paintings be "controlled and managed" by "the indigenous stakeholders" ? (4) Why would an accomplished artist agree to spend a great deal of time producing 10 paintings and then, having done so, effectively give them away to persons (Mr Stewart and his company) with whom he had had no prior relationship or dealings for their own benefit? 177The defendants' case was put upon the basis that, whatever time and effort was required to produce the paintings and whatever their combined commercial value might be, Mr Hannaford agreed in the first or early conversation that he had with Mr Stewart to ownership in the paintings passing to Mr Stewart's company. 178Mr Stewart was asked to explain the need for protecting the "girls' stories" (t.268):- "HIS HONOUR: Q. The reference to the girls' stories, what is that a reference to? A. Well, the girls' lives -- Q. What stories? A. Well, I mean some of the stories that Leah touches on in the book are girls from traditional communities, traditional backgrounds. They talk about those sort of things, but as an indigenous production company, the onus on us always is to protect those indigenous stories, those indigenous girls. We went through this experience with Box the Pony. Q. Just pause there, I'm simply trying to understand the terminology. The girls' stories is a reference to their personal tale about their background? A. Yeah, culture, tribal story, life, family, sensitive matters, those sorts of things and their persona lives as well. Leah was really looking out to protect them so that they were willing to tell Leah a lot, do a lot for this project, and Leah was really trying to protect them so they didn't put too much out there, disclose too much so that the media would get on to it or people would interpret it or family would become upset or communities would be upset. So it was really because we were the guardians, the caretakers, the stakeholders in this project, it was really important for us to really monitor that." 179It was pointed out to Mr Stewart that he had not raised in his affidavit evidence anything about the need for the paintings themselves to be protected:- "Q. I am trying to understand. So the reference in paragraph 17 is that the girls' story needed to be controlled and managed by the indigenous stakeholders. Is that right? A. Not just the stories, but all elements of the projects, images, images of the family, where those images went to." 180The questioning proceeded and the answers shed no light at all upon the concept of the so-called need for protection of "the girls' stories" as Mr Stewart claimed, on the one hand, and the portraits themselves, on the other. 181Mr Stewart's account of his explanation to Mr Hannaford as to the need for Bungabura to acquire ownership in the portraits at the end of the project is, at the every least, quite unsatisfactory. 182Firstly, it is to be noted that the account of the conversation on this aspect in paragraph 17 of Mr Stewart's first affidavit was expanded in cross-examination. The account of a stated need to protect the girls "as far as their stories" were concerned, as set out in his affidavit evidence, developed in Mr Stewart's evidence given in cross-examination to one of protecting "the girls" in terms of the paintings and the images , not merely their "stories" . That expanded version only emerged when Mr Stewart was being tested as to his rationale for the need for Bungabura to have ownership in the "stories" . 183Even if it be accepted that he had included reference in his discussions with Mr Hannaford to protecting the "girls" , not only in respect of their "stories" but also in relation to the paintings and images by means of Bungabura managing and controlling the paintings after completion of the project, there is still no rational basis in the evidence for his alleged statement as to the need for Bungabura to have ownership. Why would there be a need to "protect" the paintings from any future public exhibition when they, over the years 2000 to 20003, had been publicly exhibited? No risk to the subjects of the paintings was identified (that is, in terms of the portraits themselves). 184Mr Stewart's account is also difficult to accept in light of his letter of 16 December 1999. In that letter, there was no reference to an agreement having been made for Bungabura to acquire ownership in the paintings. The only reference as to the future was a proposal to sell the paintings at auction with the proceeds of sale going, not to Bungabura, but to "a mentoring fund for young indigenous people ..." . If sold, the paintings, of course, would no longer be under the management and control of either Mr Stewart or Bungabura as so-called "guardians" . 185Mr Stewart's evidence in cross-examination was as follows (t.271-272):- "GREGG: Q. Why in those circumstances did you write to Mr Hannaford on 16 December 1999 saying: 'As you know you are painting upwards of 9 Indigenous Women for this book and possibly a documentary project which will as far as your [sic] concerned end up as an exhibition of your work via the book launch and the art auction. Proceeds from this auction will go towards a mentoring fund for young Indigenous people in rural, regional and marginalised Australia.' Q. Why did you write that letter, Mr Stewart? A. Well, as you know, I forgot that I wrote that letter and Robert found it and produced it and on reading it I remembered that for a short period we were thinking about an auction, a high profile auction to sell the portraits at auction and the publicity and whatever might come behind it and to raise some funds from it, to offer Alf a fee as well, but that - we soon changed our mind on that and it was within a month or so of that letter we had a different position on the auction idea and never realised it. Q. Your idea for the auction would have meant Bungabura was not keeping control of the portraits or the images and would be allowing them to be dispersed. That would have been the result of your idea about the auction? A. Yeah, that's what would have happened." 186Accordingly, Mr Stewart's reference in his letter to selling the paintings with a percentage of the proceeds to go to Mr Hannaford is, of course, quite inconsistent with any prior discussion between Mr Hannaford that Bungabura would, as "guardians" need to become the owner of the paintings. 187I have concluded that Mr Hannaford's evidence that there was no discussion at all of ownership in the paintings being given to Bungabura should be accepted on this aspect. Firstly, the inherent improbability of Mr Hannaford, by then a renowned artist, agreeing to give to a perfect stranger not one, but 10 valuable portraits for nil remuneration is self-evident. Secondly, the complete absence of any documented reference to Bungabura's ownership in the portraits at the conclusion of the project (including, in particular, the letter of 16 December 1999 and the "To whom it may concern" document dated 19 December 1999) is noteworthy. Thirdly, I unreservedly accept Mr Hannaford's evidence that in 2005, 2006 and 2007 when he pursued Mr Stewart for the return of the paintings, Mr Stewart stated that he would return the paintings, but he failed to do so. Fourthly, Mr Hannaford was otherwise a credible and honest witness whose evidence denying that there were any discussions to the effect that Bungabura was to acquire ownership of the paintings I unreservedly accept. Mr Hannaford's denials of any such discussion were convincing and accord with the inherent probabilities that he would not have given away the 10 paintings for no rational reason. Fifthly, the conclusion I have formed that Mr Stewart was not an impressive or reliable witness on the central issues in contention. I will say more about his evidence below.

[30]

Exhibit C - Robert Hannaford - "Natural Eye" by John Neylon 188Mr Beech-Jones cross-examined Mr Hannaford on certain references to his work in Exhibit C. The cross-examination appeared to be directed to the proposition that certain references in Mr Neylon's book were consistent with the Black Chicks Talking portraits that had been produced on a commissioned basis. 189Mr Hannaford was taken to certain references in the above work, in particular, those said to be relevant to a question as to whether or not the references were to Mr Hannaford's knowledge, consistent with the fact that he had entered into a commission arrangement in respect of the 10 portrait paintings which he undertook for the project. 190In cross-examination, in Mr Hannaford was taken to end notes to the book, in particular, the following:- · End note 23 - the reference "... the book was published by Hodder Headline Australia Pty Limited, Sydney 2002. Hannaford was commissioned by Bungabura Productions and the Queensland Performing Arts Centre to paint 10 portraits as part of the interview process for the book ..." . Mr Hannaford said that he did not see the end note and, when asked where the author of the book could have got the information that he had been commissioned by Bungabura, said that he did not know (t.130). He agreed that, had he noticed it, it was a matter that he would have raised with the author, Mr Neylon, who said he had not been commissioned. Mr Hannaford said that the reference was not inconsistent with his case in that "If we use the word commissioned in the sense that I was commissioned to paint the portraits for the book, I don't see the inconsistency, but if that reads that I was commissioned to paint the portraits to go to Bungabura, then of course I would have objected and I've got no idea what Mr Neylon had in mind when he did that. You would have to ask him" (t.171). · Mr Hannaford's CV (reference to "Commissions (selected" )) included "Black Chicks Talking portrait series . Commissioned by Bungabura Productions and the Queensland Performing Arts Centre, 2002" . 191I accept Mr Hannaford's evidence that he did not notice or read end note 23 and, in fact, did not look at that part of the book in which the note appears. I accept that he may have read the "CV" but any failure by him to raise the matter with the author carries, in my opinion, very little weight in evaluating the cogency of Mr Hannaford's evidence in the total context of a case involving a great deal of evidence.

[32]

Discussions concerning the return of the paintings 194Mr Hannaford said that he spoke to Mr Stewart about the return of the paintings in late 2005. In paragraph 126 of his first affidavit, he said that he rang Mr Stewart with the intention of having the portraits included in a retrospective exhibition planned for early 2007 at Carrick Hill, South Australia. In the conversation (paragraph 127) he said he had been invited to exhibit some of his best works and that "... the portraits I did for your project are some of my best works" . He said Mr Stewart replied "Okay I will get onto it" . Mr Hannaford said in his affidavit:- "130. At no point during this conversation did Mr Stewart assert either that I no longer retained ownership of the paintings, or that he, Ms Purcell or Bungabura Productions owned the portraits." 195In February 2006, Mr Hannaford was in ill-health, having been diagnosed with cancer. He underwent intensive treatment for his condition at the Royal Adelaide Hospital in the period between February 2006 and December 2006. In that period, he said he did not pursue or follow up Mr Stewart about the paintings by reason of his illness. 196Mr Hannaford said that, in late 2006 as his health was improving, he telephoned Mr Stewart to the following effect:- RH: "Bain, I was wondering when I will be receiving the portraits back. I need the portraits to be returned to me for the exhibition at Carrick Hill.' BS: "That's okay. They can be returned." RH: "I will have John Neylon call you. He is the curator of the Carrick Hill exhibition. He can liaise with you directly as to the transfer arrangements." 197It was put to Mr Hannaford in cross-examination that he did not have the last-mentioned conversation. Mr Hannaford rejected the suggestion. 198Mr Hannaford's evidence was that, between July 2007 and August 2008, he attempted to telephone Mr Stewart on a number of occasions to request the return of the paintings. He said Mr Stewart answered the first of these calls in about July 2007. He said the conversation on that occasion was as follows:- RH: "I want the paintings returned so I can display them at my gallery at Riverton." BS: "Okay." 199Mr Hannaford's evidence was that after that conversation, Mr Stewart did not answer any further calls he made to him during the period between July 2007 and August 2008. He said he left messages on his voicemail requesting him to return his calls so that arrangements could be made for the return of the paintings. His messages were not met with a return call. 200According to Mr Hannaford, on 1 August 2008, he again rang Mr Stewart on his landline phone rather than using his mobile phone. In paragraphs 146 and 147 of his first affidavit, Mr Hannaford set out the effect of what was said:- "146. I said words to the effect:- RH: 'I want to have my paintings returned to me. I want to exhibit them in my gallery. If you wish, you may keep the portrait of Leah, but the others must be returned to me.' 147. Mr Stewart responded with words to the following effect:- BS: 'I will arrange for the portraits to be returned to you. I will also send a copy of the ['Black Chicks Talking'] Digital Video Disc and other multimedia which you can use in the exhibition at your gallery.'" 201Mr Hannaford said that Mr Stewart did not assert ownership in this telephone conversation. Mr Hannaford annexed the Telstra telephone account which he said itemised the above call ("RH12"). 202Mr Hannaford said he left further messages after September 2008 for Mr Stewart on both his landline and mobile phone. He said he left messages which went unanswered. 203He said in late September 2008, he left a message on Mr Stewart's voicemail to the effect that, if he did not receive a reply to his calls, he would have no choice but to commence legal proceedings to recover the portraits. He said he did not receive a reply to his message. He left a further message two days later to the following effect:- "Bain, because of your silence I have no choice and will be commencing legal action to recover my portraits. I withdraw my offer for you to retain the portrait of Leah. I will be seeking the return of all ten portraits. Please call me so we can sort this out. If not, I will go to a lawyer." 204On 10 October 2008, as earlier noted, Camatta Lempens wrote to Mr Stewart on behalf of Mr Hannaford demanding return of the paintings. Mr Stewart's letter in response has been referred to above. 205Mr Stewart's evidence in relation to telephone conversations was in direct conflict with that of Mr Hannaford. He, firstly, denied that in 2005 Mr Hannaford demanded the return of the paintings or that he agreed to return them. He said that the first time Mr Hannaford ever made any request for the return of the paintings to him was in 2007. He claimed that sometime in 2007, he said to Mr Hannaford, "You know these portraits are Bungabura's and I don't want to split them up." He said that Mr Hannaford responded to the effect "What are you doing with them, why should you keep them?" . 206Mr Stewart denied that there was any request by Mr Hannaford to have the portraits returned in 2006. 207Mr Stewart's evidence was that in 2007 or 2008 Mr Hannaford, in a telephone call, started questioning him about the paintings and what they were doing. He said that Mr Hannaford said words to the effect:- "If they [the paintings] are not doing anything, then I should have them back permanently to sit in my gallery." 208Mr Stewart said from previous discussions he understood that this was a reference to Mr Hannaford's gallery at Riverton in South Australia and he said to him (Mr Stewarts affidavit affirmed 15 October 2010 at paragraph 56):- "That wasn't the deal, Alf, and you know that I have been trying for years to realise the Black Chicks Talking multimedia Exhibition & Schools Arcade, and we have had expressions of interest from some of Australia's major museums and galleries such as National Museum of Australia, Powerhouse Museum, QPAC etc." 209Mr Stewart stated that Mr Hannaford then said words to the effect:- "As the paintings are not doing anything constructive with Bungabura and I painted them, I want them back." 210Mr Stewart said that he responded "Well that wasn't the deal" (paragraphs 57 and 58). 211In cross-examination, Mr Hannaford essentially denied the account set out in paragraphs 55 to 58 of Mr Stewart's last-mentioned affidavit. 212Mr Stewart also denied that in any of his conversations with the plaintiff he did not assert ownership in the paintings on behalf of Bungabura. He accepted that Mr Hannaford "may have left messages of demand on my telephone, but by this time I did not see any point in further addressing them" (affidavit affirmed 5 February 2010 at paragraph 38). 213I accept Mr Hannaford's evidence that he, in fact, spoke to Mr Stewart on the occasions he referred to in evidence and requested the return of the paintings. I also accept that, as he stated in evidence, he made a number of attempts to contact Mr Stewart for the return of the paintings by leaving messages on his voicemail and mobile phone but that Mr Stewart did not respond to the messages, as a result of the determination by him not to do so. 214I have no hesitation in accepting Mr Hannaford's evidence that he did speak to Mr Stewart in 2005 and 2006 as well as 2007 concerning the return of the paintings. Additionally, I accept Mr Hannaford's accounts given by him in evidence as to what was said by him and by Mr Stewart on those occasions. 215Ms Alison Mitchell, anthropologist and artist, who is married to Mr Hannaford, gave evidence of occasions upon which Mr Hannaford sought to speak to Mr Stewart. Her affidavit was sworn on 13 May 2010. 216Ms Mitchell stated that in 2008, Mr Hannaford opened his gallery at Riverton, South Australia and that, on one occasion, which she identified in cross-examination (t.207) as between 2007 and perhaps mid-2008, she was at home and Mr Hannaford decided to telephone Mr Stewart. She said in her affidavit:- "18. I could only hear Robert's side of the conversation. Robert's body language was relaxed and his tone was quite friendly. He said words to the following effect:- Robert: 'Bain, I would like you to return the Black Chicks Talking portraits so that I can exhibit them at my new gallery here in Riverton. Can you organise to have them sent to me?'" 217Ms Mitchell said that she did not make a note of the conversation. 218It was put to her in cross-examination that she did not, in fact, overhear the conversation set out in paragraph 18 of her affidavit. She responded, "Well, memory is a funny thing, but I'm pretty sure I heard that conversation" (t.209). 219Ms Nikki Hannaford, the plaintiff's niece, affirmed an affidavit in May 2010. She commenced working for Mr Hannaford in 2003 and finished working for him in December 2009. Her duties included managing Mr Hannaford's financial affairs, cataloguing his artworks and managing his work schedule and requirements. 220In her affidavit, Ms Hannaford gave an account of hearing Mr Hannaford on the telephone at his then new gallery in the following terms:- "12. During the course of the conversation, I overheard Robert say words to the effect of:- Robert said: 'I am happy to have been involved with the project and with a programme that will benefit Aboriginal women.' Robert said: 'It was never our agreement that you were to own the paintings.' Robert said: 'I now have extra storage space in my Riverton Gallery and would like my paintings returned to me.' Robert said: 'If you ever need to use the paintings again for the project, I would be happy to loan them back to you.'" 221In her oral evidence, Ms Hannaford said in evidence in chief that she could not remember the exact words but that she had reproduced in her affidavit the effect of the words as she recalled them. 222In cross-examination, Ms Hannaford said she did not make a note of the conversation, but added "... But it was a fairly memorable conversation" (t.98). She later added that there was no hostility in the conversation as she overheard it and that it was "very amicable" (t.99). 223Both Ms Mitchell and Ms Hannaford presented as completely truthful witnesses, not at all prone to over-statement. They both readily made concessions in cross-examination. I am, of course, mindful of the frailties of human recollection over a lengthy period. The occasions each spoke of involved an unusual and, probably for both of them, an entirely unique matter. I have, on consideration, concluded that their evidence is reliable evidence and I accepted it as such.

[33]

Correspondence concerning the return of the portraits 224On 10 October 2008, Mr Hannaford's solicitors, Camatta Lempens, wrote to Bungabura in the following terms;- "URGENT 10 October 2008 Bungabura Productions ... Attention: Bain Stewart Dear Sir Return of Artworks We act on behalf of Robert Hannaford who painted ten (10) portraits of Aboriginal women as part of the project 'Black Chicks Talking'. We know that the portraits of Leah Purcell, Cilla Malone, Deborah Mallman [sic] , Frances Rings, Kathryn Hay, Liza Fraser-Gooda, Rachel Perkins, Rosanna Argus [sic] , Sharyn [sic] Finnan and Tammy Williams have been retained in your possession since they were painted some years ago. We have been instructed by Mr Hannaford that he has, on many occasions, sought the return of all of the paintings which remain his absolutely. We understand from you most recently that you have placed these paintings in storage in Brisbane and that, as recently as six (6) weeks ago, he made contact with you requesting their return. Please be advised that unless all of the paintings of the women are returned to our client in good order and condition on or before the end of this calendar month we are instructed to institute legal proceedings to recover the works of art. No further notice will be given to you in this regard. The paintings are to be returned to our client care of this office. ..." 225I have referred above to Mr Stewart's reply on 30 October 2008. 226On 28 January 2009, Camatta Lempens wrote to Bungabura, attention Mr Stewart, in the following terms:- "Return of Artworks We refer to your letter dated 30 October 2008. We re-state our client's demand for the return of the ten (10) portraits of Aboriginal women created as part of the project 'Black Chicks Talking'. Our client did not receive consideration for the artworks as you claim in your correspondence. The only payments made by Bungabura Productions were in relation to accommodation and travel expenses of the artist for attending events associated with the project. No sum has been received by our client as payment for the artworks themselves. The 10 portraits therefore remain the property of the artist, Robert Hannaford. We are informed that as recently as October 2008 he spoke with you personally over the phone, during which conversation you agreed to return all 10 paintings. We request that you return the 10 portraits of our client in good order and condition care of this office within fourteen (14) days of the date of this letter. We are instructed to institute legal proceedings to recover the artworks if a genuine response is not received within this time. Legal proceedings will be commenced in South Australia. ..." 227In relation to this letter, I note, firstly, that the issue was expressly taken with the proposition that Mr Stewart had made to the effect that he held property in the portraits on the basis that he had paid "consideration" for the artworks. Secondly, the letter evidences instructions having been received from Mr Hannaford that he had, as he related in his affidavit, spoken to Mr Stewart in October 2008 in which conversation he said that Mr Stewart had agreed to return the paintings. However, Mr Stewart in evidence denied that he had agreed to return them. 228In cross-examination, Mr Hannaford confirmed that he had checked his telephone records and the telephone conversation which was said to have occurred in October 2008, in fact, took place on 1 August 2008. 229In evaluating the evidence to determine what was said and agreed in the early discussions, it is relevant to consider the evidence of subsequent conduct of Mr Stewart in two respects. Firstly, the evidence of Mr Hannaford that, in late 2000, Mr Stewart made an offer to buy all 10 paintings from him (denied by Mr Stewart). Secondly, the history of matters said and done by Mr Stewart concerning Mr Hannaford's requests for the paintings to be returned to him. Mr Stewart also disputed much of Mr Hannaford's evidence on this aspect.

[35]

Plaintiff's submissions 233Mr Gregg submitted that the principal issue for determination in the proceedings was whether Mr Hannaford entered into an agreement with one or other or both of the defendants pursuant to which he agreed to transfer title in what was said to be 10 valuable portraits in exchange for kudos and accreditation and payment of his out of pocket expenses. 234If the Court was not persuaded that there was an agreement to that effect, then it was submitted that there must be a verdict for the plaintiff. In that respect, it was contended that, as artist and creator, Mr Hannaford is the owner of the paintings. He had demanded their return and the defendants have refused. It was contended that this amounted to conversion and detinue: Outline of the Plaintiff's Submissions at paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2. 235It was emphasised in the submissions that Mr Hannaford's case had always been that he agreed to support what he understood to be a charitable cause for the benefit of young Aboriginal people. He had agreed to paint 10 portraits and allow the images to be used in a book for no fee. It was said that he agreed to do so upon the basis that he would remain the owner of the portraits: at paragraph 1.3. 236It was submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that the weight of the evidence supported Mr Hannaford's version of events. On the other hand, it was contended, that the defendants' version was "inherently improbable" : at paragraph 1.4. It was submitted that the evidence for the defendants was "internally inconsistent and implausible. It is also inconsistent with documentary evidence and the testimony of other witnesses" (at paragraph 1.4). 237In the Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Submissions , Mr Gregg made the following submissions on the question of onus of proof:- "1. The plaintiff does not need to prove an agreement. The plaintiff only needs to prove that he was the owner of the portraits at the time he delivered them into the first defendant's possession and that he did not agree to transfer ownership by gift or contract. 2. The plaintiff has discharged the onus. He is the owner of the portraits by virtue of the fact that he created them. ... 5. The plaintiff is entitled to possession of the paintings by virtue of his ownership of the paintings. Ownership does not arise out of an agreement as contended in paragraph three of the defendants' submissions. Ownership arises out of the creation of the paintings. 6. The defendants need to prove an agreement to transfer ownership. The onus is on the defendants' [sic] to prove an agreement. The evidence does not support an agreement in the terms contended for by the defendants' [sic] 7. If the Court is not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that there was a contract as Mr Stewart contends, with a special express term which clearly provided for ownership of the paintings to transfer to the defendants or one or other of them then the plaintiff must have a verdict." 238It was additionally contended for Mr Hannaford that the evidence was not sufficiently precise or reliable to allow a finding of an agreement as was contended for by the defendants. Even if there was sufficient evidence in that respect, then it was argued that the agreement would not be enforceable for the reasons set out in paragraph 1.5 of the submissions. 239In the written submissions for the plaintiff, detailed submissions were made in respect of particular aspects of the evidence to which I have earlier referred. 240Accordingly, it was submitted "ownership" does not arise out of an agreement as contended for in the submissions for the defendants. Rather, "ownership" arose in this case out of the creation by Mr Hannaford of the 10 paintings. 241Mr Gregg, in his submissions, observed that it was for the defendants to prove an agreement to transfer ownership, and in that respect, the onus was on them. The evidence, he submitted, did not support an agreement in the terms contended for by the defendants: Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Submissions at paragraph 6. 242It was contended that the evidence of Mr Hannaford established that he agreed, based on an understanding from what he was told by Mr Stewart, that he was being asked to support a charitable cause for the benefit of young Aboriginal people. In particular, in that respect, he agreed to paint the portraits and to allow the images to be used in the proposed book for no fee. Mr Hannaford's case is that he agreed to do so on the basis that he would remain the owner of the portraits. 243The competing versions of the discussions concerning the agreement were summarised in the submissions as follows:- Hannaford version 1.10 Hannaford says the agreement was formed in the course of one or more telephone conversations with Stewart in late 1999 before he commenced painting the portrait of Kathryn Hay in about November 1999. 1.11 Hannaford agreed to paint 10 portraits and allow them to be reproduced in the Black Chicks Talking Book for no fee. He is adamant that he did not ever agree to transfer ownership in the portraits and that this was not discussed. 1.12 Hannaford's recollection is that he commenced painting Kathryn Hay in Adelaide in about November 1999 because Kathryn Hay was in Adelaide at that time for other reasons. He then went to Sydney to paint the other portraits and there met Stewart in person. Stewart version 1.13 Stewart says that the agreement was formed in the course of an initial telephone conversation and a further conversation at dinner at a restaurant in Sydney in mid to late 1999 before Hannaford commenced painting the portrait of Kathryn Hay. 1.14 Hannaford does not deny that he had dinner with Stewart at some stage but thinks it was after he had painted the portrait of Kathryn Hay and came to Sydney to paint some of the other portraits in December 1999. 1.15 In his affidavit, Stewart purported to recall precise words used in conversation at the dinner meeting; however, under cross-examination, he could not do so and resorted to long discursive argumentative reconstruction. 1.16 Hannaford does not recall the dinner meeting so does not recall precise words of any conversation he had with Stewart. He is adamant, however, that he did not have a discussion with Stewart to the effect that Bungabura or Stewart or anyone else would own the paintings. 1.17 Hannaford was absolutely clear in his evidence about that. He says that if words to that effect had been spoken 'they would have stood out like a beacon' in my mind. 1.18 Stewart's evidence as to the alleged dinner conversation is unreliable. There should be a finding that the statements Stewart attributes to himself in the course of the dinner conversation to the effect that he and Bungabura were the 'guardians of the girls' stories' and that Bungabura would have to own the paintings in response to which Hannaford simply said 'okay' are contrived and implausible." 244It was submitted that the letter of 16 December 1999 does not support a concluded agreement in the terms contended for by Mr Stewart. 245It was observed that the letter written by Mr Stewart to Mr Hannaford sought to introduce proposed variations to the arrangement that Mr Hannaford was then working under. It was submitted in this respect that the proposed variations were never accepted by Mr Hannaford. 246In any event, it was submitted that the terms proposed in the letter of 16 December 1999 were incomplete on their face. In this respect, reference was made to the statement "we will arrange an agreement" . It followed, so the submission went, that in the mind of Mr Stewart there was no agreement at the time of the letter. 247Additionally, the letter referred to the possibility of an auction and a percentage of the proceeds being paid to Mr Hannaford. The percentage referred to in that letter was in the order of 10 to 15%, although that was not a definitive amount at that stage. Reference was made in the course of the submissions for the plaintiff to the principle that a contract will fail for incompleteness where an essential or important part of the bargain is yet to be agreed. 248An alternative submission was that the contract contended for by Mr Stewart was not enforceable. It was said that this was because it was not supported by valuable consideration from Mr Stewart or Bungabura to Mr Hannaford. 249In relation to the phrase "valuable consideration" used by Mr Stewart in his letter of 30 October 2008 in reply to the letter from Camatta Lempens, reference was made to Mr Stewart's evidence in cross-examination that the payments referred to in that letter were those made by way of reimbursement of Mr Hannaford for expenses he had incurred. The submission was that the reimbursement could not constitute "valuable consideration" because no net benefit was thereby given to Mr Hannaford. 250Additionally it was argued, the only reliable evidence established that the extent of reimbursement was in fact less than the amount of actual expenses that had been incurred by Mr Hannaford. 251Further submissions were made in relation to alleged misrepresentation and implied repudiation of contract. 252The primary submission was that it is unnecessary for the Court to consider and decide what were described as "the subsidiary issues" by reason of the fact that the weight of evidence was against a finding in favour of the defendants on the principal issue, namely, whether there was an agreement to transfer title to the defendants. 253I will return to the alternative submissions, as necessary, below. 254Evidence was given by Mr Hannaford as to the commissions he would charge for undertaking portrait painting. The submission was that the word "commission" was not used in the discussions between Mr Hannaford and Mr Stewart. Reliance was placed upon Mr Hannaford's evidence that he was not commissioned by Mr Stewart or Bungabura and did not believe that the word "commission" was ever used in the dealings between them. Mr Stewart's evidence was that he could not recall whether the word was ever used. It should be concluded, it was submitted, that there was no discussion on the basis of a "commission" . Mr Stewart had made it clear that he and Bungabura could not afford to pay a commission. 255In relation to the portraits themselves, it was noted in the submissions that they were used at various exhibitions for the purposes of promoting the Black Chicks Talking book and in connection with documentary film and stage play. 256It was submitted that the evidence established that the portraits are of high quality and value. On the basis of Mr Hannaford's standard fee as at 1999, he said that the set of 10 paintings was worth at least $200,000 without frames at the time the agreement was entered into.

[36]

Defendants' submissions 257The defendants relied upon both written and oral submissions, in particular, the Defendants' Outline of Submissions dated 16 February 2011 and the Defendants' Supplementary Submissions dated 24 February 2011. 258I have read the written submissions and I do not propose here to reproduce all of the detail contained within them. I will, however, refer to certain matters raised. 259In the Defendants' Outline of Submissions , it was submitted:- "... In this case, the Plaintiff pleads and asserts that his right to possession flows from his ownership of the portraits and, in particular, ownership arising out of the agreement pleaded in ASOC [5]. The result is that the Plaintiff bears the onus of proving an agreement in the form pleaded in ASOC [5] and, in particular, one containing clause 5.1, namely, that ultimately 'the Plaintiff would retain ownership of the paintings'. If the Plaintiff cannot establish an agreement that contains that clause, then his case must fail as then he would have no basis for disturbing the possession of the First or Second Defendant, as the case may be." ( The Plaintiff's onus at paragraph 3) 260In his oral submissions, Mr Gregg took issue with this submission. He contended that the submission was "... an attempt by the defendants to reverse the onus of proof in this case ..." (t.364). Mr Gregg submitted that the plaintiff's position was that there was no onus on him to prove the agreement under which Mr Hannaford gave his support to the project. Rather, he submitted, the defendants bore the onus of proving the agreement that they contended for and by which, they claimed, there was a transfer of ownership in the paintings (t.365). "Ownership" , Mr Gregg contended, did not arise out of the agreement or arrangement whereby Mr Hannaford gave his support to the project on a gratuitous basis (apart from expenses). The starting point for the analysis was that Mr Hannaford owned the paintings. It was not incumbent, it was submitted, for the plaintiff to prove an agreement establishing his ownership. 261I will set out the elements or matters that the plaintiff is required to establish in order to obtain the relief sought later in this judgment. It is sufficient at this point to say that I accept the submission made by Mr Gregg on this issue of onus. 262Other submissions made on behalf of the defendants also proceed upon the basis that Mr Hannaford had the onus of proving an agreement as referred to in the Further Amended Statement of Claim ( Defendants' Outline of Submissions , at paragraph 10). 263The defendants' submissions address at length, what is referred to as, "Objective Material" at paragraphs 22 to 45 of the Defendants' Outline of Submissions . 264It was contended that three of the documents identified indicated that the parties had acted on the basis that Mr Hannaford had been "commissioned" to produce the paintings. These included the letter of 16 December 1999, 19 December 1999 receipt and the CV on the Monograph written by Mr Neylon. However, it was accepted that neither Mr Hannaford nor Mr Stewart had discussed a "commission" or "commissions" . 265I have elsewhere referred in this judgment to the fact that I do not accept the submission made at paragraph 31 of the defendants' written submissions that Mr Stewart's letter of 16 December 1999 should be regarded as "neutral" . In particular, I have dealt with the question raised as to the distinction between the reference to the proceeds of a sale of the paintings being for the benefit of a mentoring support scheme and the proceeds of the book. I need not here repeat what I have stated on that subject. I note the submission in paragraph 32 of the defendants' written submissions that the letter of 16 December 1999 was "floating" different proposals referred to in the submissions. If anything, in my opinion, that is consistent with there having been an absence of a concluded agreement between the parties, that is, an absence of negotiations leading to final terms and conditions. 266I have noted the submission made in relation to the "19 December 1999 Receipt" elsewhere, as well as the reliance upon the particular matters identified in the book written by Mr Neylon. I do not need to repeat here the observations I have made on those matters. 267In respect of the mentoring fund, submissions were made that Mr Hannaford's recollection as to what was said about a mentoring fund was "overlaid with later impressions and reconstructions" (at paragraph 47). I do not consider that there is any significance to be attached in any variation in Mr Hannaford's evidence as to whether he employed the expressions "for Aboriginal women" or "Aboriginal young women" or any other combination. The conclusions expressed later in this judgment that Mr Stewart did refer to proceeds that would flow to a mentoring and support fund have been reached by me having regard to the evidence and the submissions of both parties. 268In relation to Mr Hannaford's evidence that he had spoken to Mr Stewart in the period 2005 to 2008 requesting the return of the paintings, detailed written submissions were made in the defendants' written submissions in relation to each occasion identified by Mr Hannaford. It was accepted as a general proposition that, to the extent that the evidence was sought to demonstrate that some action had been taken to recover the paintings, then no contrary submission was made. However, insofar as the plaintiff asserted that the evidence constituted an admission by Mr Stewart as to ownership by Mr Hannaford of the portraits, then, for reasons set out in the written submissions, it was contended that the evidence did not establish any such admission. 269In the course of the submissions, particular reliance was placed upon the email exchange between Mr Stewart and Mr Neylon in September 2007. I do not, here, reproduce the full detail of the submissions in that respect, although I have considered the argument that has been made with respect thereto. 270In relation to the 2005 request for the return of the paintings, a number of matters were raised (at paragraph 52). One of those matters was that the evidence of Mr Hannaford did not involve any assertion of ownership by him or a concession of ownership on the part of Mr Stewart. I will deal later with the question as to whether or not Mr Hannaford's request for the return of the paintings implicitly involved an assertion of ownership and Mr Stewart's alleged response as an acquiescence or acceptance by him of such ownership. 271The submission on behalf of the defendants, that the request by Mr Hannaford in 2005 for the return of the paintings did not involve any assertion of ownership by Mr Hannaford or an admission by Mr Stewart, was a submission repeated in respect of Mr Hannaford's requests for the return of the paintings made in 2006 and 2007. Similarly, in respect of the telephone call on the landline made by Mr Hannaford to Mr Stewart on 1 August 2008, it was contended that the evidence did not support a contention that anything stated by Mr Stewart amounted to an admission of the plaintiff's ownership of the portraits. That submission was qualified insofar as it acknowledged Mr Hannaford's evidence in which he said that he used the phrase "my paintings" when speaking to Mr Stewart on the phone. It was observed that Mr Hannaford accepted that he could not say that he definitely used that particular phrase, but only maintained that that was the "gist" of it. 272Mr Stewart's evidence in relation to the evidence of Mr Hannaford that he agreed in the phone calls to return the paintings was denied by Mr Stewart. 273In relation to Mr Stewart's credit, it was submitted that he was candid in confronting his lack of recollection on a number of matters. It was observed that, on a number of occasions during cross-examination, Mr Stewart experienced considerable difficulty in following the cross-examiner's "dictate" that he relay conversations in direct speech. It was submitted that the difficulties he experienced in responding to what was described as an open-ended set of questions in terms of what was said in direct speech on particular occasions, should not detract from acceptance of his evidence. 274It was contended that the reliability of much of Mr Hannaford's evidence was effected, as would be expected, by the passage of time overlayed by reviewing and considering the material that has emerged since the proceedings commenced. It was submitted that, in a number of respects, he had difficulty in recalling events. 275In relation to the parties to the agreement pleaded by the defendants, it was contended that Bungabura entered into the agreement with Mr Hannaford. On that basis, any breach of the agreement was made by it, rather than Mr Stewart, and that the company, and not Mr Stewart, had possession of the paintings. It was contended that, at no point, had Mr Stewart asserted either ownership or a right to possession in his own right. He had only done so in his capacity as a director of Bungabura. 276In this latter respect, a number of matters were identified in the written submissions to support the contention that the relevant party was Bungabura and not Mr Stewart (at paragraph 67).

[38]

(2) The "terms" of the oral agreement 278Leaving to one side for the moment what was actually said in the discussions between Mr Hannaford and Mr Stewart and, whether the relevant discussions took place over the telephone or in the motel restaurant, it is necessary, in my opinion, to have regard to the circumstances and context in which the discussions took place. 279On Mr Stewart's own account, the meeting he said took place at the motel restaurant was the first face to face meeting he had had with Mr Hannaford, whom he had never met in person prior to that time. The defendants' case was that the discussion over dinner at the restaurant constituted the terms of a binding enforceable contract. 280An examination of the relevant circumstances, however, indicates clearly enough that the meeting was in the nature of a preliminary discussion of a range of issues. In cross-examination, Mr Stewart referred on a number of occasions to the fact that the discussions was "part of the pitch" by him about the project to Mr Hannaford (t.256, line 42; t.263, line 23). 281Although I accept that Mr Hannaford agreed in his early discussions to paint the portraits without seeking a commission, the discussions were clearly introductory in nature rather than detailed negotiations for settling the terms and conditions of a binding agreement enforceable at law. 282The evidence of both Mr Hannaford and Mr Stewart (Mr Stewart's evidence is discussed below) establish that the discussions were in the nature of an overview or outline the proposed project. This was reflected in Mr Stewart's evidence. He was asked (t.248-249):- "Q. What words did you say about that project? A. Well, I asked Alf if he was interested. Q. Interested in what? A. In painting the portraits. Q. What portraits? A. The portraits of the nine women involved and the author, Leah Purcell. Q. Go on? A. Then I just laid out the proposition of -- Q. What did you say? A. Would he be interested in painting them, mentioned the fact that Scott had said to me that Alf waives his fees on projects. Q. What did you say to Mr Hannaford about that? What words did you use? A. I said to Mr Hannaford that there's no budget for this project and about waiving his fee to paint the portraits. Q. No, what did you say about that? You just said 'and about'. What I am asking you is what words you used to Mr Hannaford, if you are able to tell the court? A. Yeah, look, all I remember is just outlining the deal on the night , the terms that we went through about his involvement in the project ..." (emphasis added) 283On the question of the paintings, he was asked (t.249):- "Q. Is there anything else you remember you said to Mr Hannaford on this occasion? A. Yes. I said if he agreed to do the paintings it was important for Bungabura to keep the paintings at project's end as the indigenous stakeholders in the project, it was important for us to protect the girls' story and their images, and that's what we spoke about as well." 284A little later it was put to him (t.250):- "Q. You did not say to Mr Hannaford words to the effect, 'Bungabura wants to keep the paintings', did you? A. I said that at that meeting. Q. What do you say Mr Hannaford replied to that? A. Words to the effect of 'okay', he agreed. Q. 'Okay'. That's all he said, 'okay'? A. Yeah, pretty much a short reply. I remember we were in a flow, we were in a conversation , we were talking about ownership, about sittings, about the project." (emphasis added) 285It is clear and I find:- (1) That the early discussions in December 1999 including the initial face-to-face meeting Mr Stewart referred to were not in the nature of negotiations to settle the final terms and conditions of an arrangement or an agreement for Mr Hannaford to paint the portraits and for the images to be used in the book. Mr Stewart's evidence that, "... all I remember is just outlining the deal on the night, the terms that we went through about his involvement in the project" is consistent with discussions in outline of the project that Mr Stewart was proposing for Mr Hannaford's consideration and support. (2) In a very real sense, this case is about a unilateral arrangement in which the only party to it that offered anything of substantial value was Mr Hannaford with no valuable consideration or benefit having been offered in return by the defendants. (3) The defendants have not, in my opinion, discharged the burden on them to prove that a legally binding obligation arose under the alleged agreement pleaded in paragraph 9 of the Defence. 286The terms of Mr Stewart's letter dated 16 December 1999 are consistent with the conclusion that no final agreement had been concluded by Mr Hannaford and the defendants. The letter referred to a number of matters including the possibility of a commission of $10,000 being paid although doubt expressed as to what percentage could be finally offered. That reference was followed by the statement "... at some stage we will organise an agreement spelling out things like what exactly the portraits will be doing in relation to the book and potential exhibitions, and we are very excited at the prospect of the co-author's portrait of Leah Purcell being entered in the 2000 Archibald Prize ..." 287In cross-examination, the matter was raised with Mr Stewart (t.313):- "Q. Your letter in the third paragraph says, 'At some stage we will organise an agreement spelling out things'. It goes on to nominate some things. You, in writing those words, contemplated that there would be, at some stage, a written agreement between either you and Mr Hannaford or Bungabura and Mr Hannaford brought into existence, didn't you? A. Yes. Q. Such a written agreement was never drawn up, was it? A. No. Q. And certainly never executed? A. No ..." 288Whether or not Mr Stewart in fact did say that Mr Hannaford would benefit from the project in terms of accreditation for his works, the publicity associated with the project and "kudos" , I accept unreservedly Mr Hannaford's evidence:- (1) That none of those matters played any part at all in his willingness and preparedness to support what he considered to be a benevolent project. (2) That he enthusiastically agreed to support the project entirely for benevolent and not commercial reasons. His willingness to support the project was based upon his interest in a scheme or project that would generate funds to assist and support young indigenous people. He was led in that respect to understand by what Mr Stewart told him that the proceeds from the book would go to support a scheme of that kind.

[39]

(3) Findings on the issue of ownership of the paintings 289Did Mr Hannaford agree that Bungabura would become the owner of the paintings? In examining the evidence in relation to this question, a relevant point of inquiry is to ascertain a rational basis as to why Mr Hannaford would agree that Bungabura, a company with which he had no prior association (nor did he have any with Mr Stewart) would not only benefit from the proceeds of the project through the use of the images of the paintings and the exhibition of the paintings themselves, but would also benefit by becoming the owner of 10 valuable portrait paintings. 290As previously noted in paragraph 17 of his affidavit affirmed on 5 February 2010, Mr Stewart said that he told Mr Hannaford that Bungabura "wants" to keep the paintings at the end of the project. By way of what was, in effect, an explanation, he stated that "We" were the "... guardians ... of the girls' stories ..." and that, as part of the exhibition, "they" (inferentially, the paintings) "... needed to be controlled and managed by the indigenous stakeholders in the project" . It was also earlier noted on Mr Stewart's account, Mr Hannaford raised no query or questions and simply said words to the effect "okay" . 291In cross-examination, Mr Stewart was asked, in effect, whether, apart from Ms Purcell, the other women, whose portraits Mr Hannaford painted, "... required as a condition of their participation in the interview process for the book that Bungabura Productions obtain ownership of the paintings and the images" (t.269). Mr Stewart replied "I don't know that they required that. I think that they expected that that's what we would do as a production company, look after their stories and look after their images and their portraits and pictures" (t.270). 292Mr Stewart's evidence on this aspect was far from impressive. As discussed earlier in this judgment, he sought to expand the concept of Bungabura and Mr Stewart being "the guardians" , not only to "the girls' stories" , but to the paintings themselves. The cross-examination of Mr Stewart revealed that the women who were the subjects of the paintings imposed no requirement that the portraits would need to be protected:- "Q. And they [referring to nine of the 10 women] spelt that out to you or to Miss Purcell or to Bungabura, did they, before their participation? A. No. We spelt it out to them, that we were there to look after them and to protect them as we could with their stories, with their images, with their pictures."

[42]

Conclusions 302Even on the defendants' case, the purpose and object of obtaining the plaintiff's agreement to paint the portraits was to provide images of the same for inclusion in the book Black Chicks Talking and for the paintings to be publicly exhibited and for use in promoting other aspects of the project. 303Fulfilment of that purpose and object did not, on the evidence, necessitate or require a need for Bungabura to become the owner of the portraits. 304Proof of the terms of the agreement pleaded by the defendant, being one that was alleged to have arisen from discussions between Mr Hannaford and Mr Stewart in late 1999, depended upon an acceptance of Mr Stewart's evidence and the rejection of that given by Mr Hannaford. 305On significant aspects, Mr Stewart, in my assessment, was an unreliable witness. This observation applies, in particular, in relation to two of the factual matters that were subjacent to the Defence:- (1) Firstly, Mr Stewart had been adamant that he had not proposed the project to Mr Hannaford upon the basis that the proceeds of the book would go towards a mentoring scheme for young indigenous women or young indigenous people. It was, however, Mr Hannaford's position that it was this very aspect that attracted him to support the project. (2) Secondly, it was central to the defendants' case that Mr Stewart was to be accepted when he said that ownership of the paintings was specifically discussed between him and Mr Hannaford and that Mr Hannaford agreed, without question, to Mr Stewart's proposition that ownership in them would reside in Bungabura. 306In relation to (1) above, Mr Stewart firmly and repeatedly denied in evidence that any reference had been made in the discussions with Mr Hannaford to the effect that the proceeds from the book would be applied for the benefit of a mentoring and support scheme. That evidence was important on the question as to whether Mr Hannaford agreed to support the project, without benefit to him, on the basis that it had been represented by Mr Stewart that the project would have a benevolent purpose or focus. 307In circumstances discussed earlier in this judgment, Mr Stewart later changed his evidence and accepted, consistently with the evidence that had been given by Mr Hannaford, that there had been a discussion between them on the subject of a mentoring and support scheme for young indigenous persons (or young indigenous women) and that this was related to the project (including the book). 308In relation to the matter referred in (2) above, Mr Stewart's evidence as to why Mr Hannaford would give the paintings to Bungabura went to the significant issue in the proceedings. Mr Stewart's evidence suffered from a number of difficulties:- (1) His evidence on the matter was inherently improbable. (2) It lacked any rational explanation as to why the plaintiff would give the paintings to Bungabura (and, indirectly, for the benefit of its director, Mr Stewart) who, at the material time, were "strangers" to him. (3) The evidence was dependent upon the reliability, including in particular, the veracity of Mr Stewart's evidence and explanation as to why Bungabura had to become owner of the portraits (the alleged need to protect the "girls' stories" explanation discussed above). 309The subsequent conduct of Mr Stewart, including in particular, the conversations that he had with Mr Hannaford who had sought the return of the paintings implicitly recognised Mr Hannaford's entitlement as owner of the paintings. 310Having considered the evidence as to whether Mr Stewart, as Mr Hannaford stated, agreed to return the paintings, I unreservedly accept Mr Hannaford's evidence. 311In particular, I accept Mr Hannaford's evidence as both truthful and reliable evidence, namely, that, in 2005, 2006 and 2007 when he requested Mr Stewart to return the paintings, Mr Stewart responded by stating that he would return them (but did not). The responses by Mr Stewart to Mr Hannaford's requests implicitly acknowledged Mr Hannaford's right to possession of the paintings as owner of them. 312The defendants have failed to discharge the onus of proving the agreement pleaded in their Defence. 313The plaintiff has established his ownership of the paintings. He is entitled to the order sought in the Further Amended Statement of Claim for the return of the paintings to him. 314It was contended in the proceedings that, in the event that the plaintiff was successful, that any relief ought be ordered against Bungabura and that the proceedings should be dismissed against Mr Stewart. 315At all material times, as earlier discussed, the directors and shareholders of Bungabura were Mr Stewart and his partner, Ms Purcell. The relevant discussions and dealing concerning the paintings were conducted by Mr Stewart. Even if it be accepted that at all times Mr Stewart acted on behalf of Bungabura in his dealings with Mr Hannaford, there is, in my opinion, no support for the proposition for which Mr Stewart contended, namely, that relief should only be granted against his company, and not himself personally. On the assumption that he was, at all material times, representing the company in his dealings with Mr Hannaford he would, in any event, be liable in accordance with the principles that determine the liability of directors for the torts of their company. 316Clearly, insofar as any of the acts involved in the dealings (including the discussions with Mr Hannaford) were conducted on behalf of Mr Stewart's company, he, Mr Stewart, was privy to all relevant acts involved in the dealings. Indeed, he was the only director who entered into relevant discussions with Mr Hannaford, signed documents and organised payment of expenses. 317In Performing Right Society v Ciryl Theatrical Syndicate [1924] 1 KB 1 at 14, Atkin LJ observed that, if those in control of a company, namely, it's directors, expressly direct that a wrongful thing be done, the directors may also be held responsible for the consequences. That principle has been re-stated and applied in Private Parking Services (Vic) Pty Limited v Huggard (1996) Aust Torts R 81-397. 318It is clear that a director is liable for the tortious acts of his company which the director has ordered or procured to be done by the director: see Evans & Sons v Spritebrand Limited [1985] 1 WLR 317 at 324 per Slade LJ. 319On the evidence in the present case, the facts, of course, establish that Mr Stewart was, throughout, instrumental in and had direct personal involvement in matters leading to possession of the paintings being obtained by Mr Stewart and/or Bungabura. Accordingly, even assuming that he was at all times acting on behalf of his own company, a tort, whether it be detinue or conversion, committed by the company, in the circumstances of the present case, is a civil wrong for which he is liable. 320Quite apart from Mr Stewart's liability for any acts of his company, which were initiated and conducted by him, his own evidence, as stated in his affidavit affirmed on 5 February 2010 at paragraph 8, established that he took the paintings to his home in Newmarket, Brisbane, Queensland about 18 months to two years prior to swearing that affidavit. 321Accordingly, actual control and possession of the paintings during the currency of the present proceedings (until the making of the orders of McCallum J on 23 March 2010) resided in Mr Stewart. Detinue having been established, the remedy lies against the person who, at the material time, held possession of the chattels. 322In addition to possession, it was Mr Stewart who directly made the decision to refuse to return the paintings and he acted accordingly. 323The defendants having failed, in particular, on the issue of "ownership" , there is no other basis disclosed in the Defence or otherwise which would shield Mr Stewart from liability and entitle him to dismissal of the proceedings.