Federal Court of Australia John Hanson is the Proprietor & Owner of Blenhaven Stud, Wyong NSW Australia
Federal Court of Australia [Index] [Search] [Context ] [Help]
COURT IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION Wilcox J. HRNG SYDNEY #DATE 13:11:1984 ORDER Application for review granted. Order that each of the following decisions: a) the decision of the third respondent dated 10 October 1984 to order into quarantine 'all birds and associated building and goods on the property of Lot 13, Jensen Road Wyong'; b) the decision of the second respondent made on 10 October 1984 to order the destruction of the pigeons and poultry on the said property; and c) the seizure order of the third respondent made on 10 October in relation to the pigeons and poultry on the said property; be quashed as from the date of the said decisions. Order that the respondents and each of them refrain from taking any action in relation to the implementation or enforcement of the said decisions or any of them. Order that the respondents pay the costs of the applicants of the Application including the costs of all interlocutory proceedings in relation thereto. Direct that the exhibits be returned at the expiration of twenty-one (21) days unless an appeal is filed in the meantime. JUDGE1 This case, which comes to the Court pursuant to the Administrative Decisions(Judicial Review) Act 1977, concerns the question whether about 500 pigeons, breeding and racing stock, owned by the applicants and housed at their property at North Wyong are liable, along with sundry poultry, to be destroyed by the respondent quarantine officers pursuant to powers conferred by the Quarantine Act 1908. The evidence has ranged widely, touching on the genealogy and history of the applicants' pigeons, the descriptions under which they have been advertised and sold, the susceptibility of pigeons and poultry to a virus known as Newcastle disease, the present state of health of the applicants' stock and the circumstances under which decisions were made by the respondents to "raid" various pigeon breeders around Australia and to proceed to the destruction of the applicants' birds. In all, the evidence does more for the reputation of the birds than for that of some of the principal human protagonists. The evidence shows that Mr Hanson brought his troubles upon himself by deceptive descriptions of some of his birds. (part).
In October or November 1979 Mr Fleming agreed to donate a bird to a charity auction to be held at Fairfield , Sydney . He informed Mr Hanson, adding that he proposed to describe the bird as "a Dordin of great value" but that this was being done as a gimmick to promote interest in his book. In the event, two birds were donated. A notice was attached to each cage stating that the birds were presented by Mr Fleming, that each was "Pure Dordin" and continuing: (Part)
(Part)
5. Mr Hanson purchased one of the birds put up at the auction. He paid $250 knowing, he says, that the bird was not in fact a Dordin. He was anxious to promote interest in his stud by letting it be thought that he had Dordin breeding stock. 6 . About six months after the Fairfield auction Mr Hanson acquired another bird from Mr Fleming. After many years' effort Mr Fleming had produced a female chick with a violet eye. He contacted Mr Hanson and the two men arranged a further "gimmick". In front of newspaper cameras a cheque for $2,000 was handed by Mr Hanson to Mr Fleming as the "price" of the chick "sold" to him. Mr Fleming explained to reporters his theory of eye-sign and illustrated it by reference to the bird. The "gimmick" worked; Mr Hanson obtained publicity for his stud. But, after the reporters left, the cheque was torn up. (part)
(part)
10. Mr Hanson had always described the Fairfield auction cock, the violet eyed hen and all of their progency - including offspring of the Fairfield cock and Bionic hens - in his records as "Dordins". He said that he knew that they were not but that he wished to create in the minds of potential purchasers - to whom he was wont to show the book on request - the "possibility" that they were Dordins. Later in his evidence he put it higher; he wanted people to think that the birds were genuine Dordins. In case they had missed the point he spelled it out in invoices which he wrote. For example, an invoice for a pair of chicks bred in 1980 from the Fairfield auction bird and "violet eye" were described as "Genuine Dordins", with a repetition of the "information" relating to the purchase of ancestors from M Dordin which was contained in the notice on the cage at the auction.
11 . Mr Hanson's deceptive conduct did not stop at Dordins . In about 1979 he bought a cock which was an Appleby/Harrison cross, described by Mr Hanson as "a typical local breed". He had lost his ring in a race so he could not be precisely identified. Mr Hanson decided to call him a "Cattryse", a European strain developed by two brothers of that name. He mated him with Bionics, a local strain, and sold the off-spring as Cattryse or Cattryse-Lawry; Mr Lawry being a well known Australian breeder. The effect of using the European names, according to Mr Hanson, was to cause purchasers to be willing to pay more than they otherwise would; although sale prices were not necessarily higher than good local stock sold as such and were well below what genuine imported Dordins or Cattryse would have fetched. But he did agree in his evidence that "it was all just a fraud on the purchasers". His explanation was that everyone else was doing it too. (part)
part)
Mr Hanson said that some of his birds were "what we call Dordins and Cattryse". He elaborated on this by telling Mr Everett about the circumstances of the acquisitions from Mr Fleming, claiming that none of the birds were truly Dordins or Cattryse, that these names were a fabrication to help to sell the birds. He produced his records, including the notice affixed to the cage at the Fairfield auction. Mr Everett inspected the birds. He found no sign of disease. At about 12.30 pm he issued a notice putting into quarantine "all birds and associated building and goods on the property of Lot 13, Jensen Road , Wyong". Mr Everett called up two other quarantine officers to guard the premises and went to Wyong Police Station. He telephoned Mr John Keogh, a quarantine officer then at the Customs House in Sydney . The Customs House was being used as "the centre of operations" for the raids. Mr Hanson told Mr Keogh what he had found, including a reference to the cage notice. He informed Mr Keogh that Mr Hanson had said that this was a gimmick, that he was not selling Dordins or Cattrysse, that the advertisements were false (part)
The above text is part of a large court transcript (25 pages.)
Full case history... Click Here.
John Hanson meanwhile remains in business with his Blenhaven Stud. http://www.blenhaven.com.au/
One may well ask the question.......does a Leopard ever change it's spots?