Carlton Brewery (Fiji) Ltd v Lees Transport Ltd [1979] FijiLawRp 8; [ 1979] 25 FLR 72 (21 December 1979)

[1979] 25 FLR 72

SUPREME COURT OF FIJI

Civil Jurisdiction

CARLTON BREWERY (FIJI) LIMITED

v

LEES TRANSPORT LIMITED

Dyke, J.-

21^st December 1979

Injunction−To restrain company using bottles which had remained property of (Plaintiff) supplier−as noted on invoices, bottles and advertisement.

B. N Sweetman for Plaintiff
S. M Koya for Defendant

Application for injunction where it was alleged the defendant company was using the plaintiff's bottles for the purposes of its soft drinks business, an order to account to the plaintiff for bottles still in its possession and return of the bottles and an injunction to restrain the defendant from using plaintiff's bottles or at least such of them as it now had in its possession.

The learned trial Judge made these comments upon the evidence and findings thereon:

1. The plaintiff imports some four millions bottles per year at the cost of $2.62 per dozen.

2. It uses the bottles several times and works on the basis that it should get five usages out of each bottle.

Its costing is worked out on this basis, allowing for the initial cost and expecting to get the bottles returned, for which it pays authorised collectors 80c per dozen each time they are returned.

The bottles are in great demand being used for soft drinks manufacturers, and other traders to contain various liquids.

In an endeavour to retain its interest in the bottles, the plaintiff had adopted various measures for several years.

In the first place bottles have embossed on the sign the Trade Mark of the plaintiff and around the base the words "Fiji Beer. This bottle always remains the property of (plaintiff)".

Further, the plaintiff caused to be inserted about four times a year in a newspaper circulating in Fiji advertisements in Hindi and Fijian drawing the public's attention to the markings on the bottle and giving warning that bottles so marked were not sold but remained the property of the plaintiff.

The advertisement also stated that on demand such bottles must be surrendered to the plaintiff or its agents; but that the plaintiff will pay persons returning them for their care and trouble in preserving and returning the bottles, at a rate to be fixed periodically.