A recent case has restated the basic principles of a claim in
conversion for wrongful retention of goods. In Schwarzschild v
Harrods Ltd, the court confirmed that for such a claim to arise,
there has to be both an unequivocal demand for delivery up and an
unequivocal refusal to do so.
Go deeper with GlobalData
Access deeper industry intelligence
Experience unmatched clarity with a single platform that combines unique data, AI, and human expertise.
The claimant’s mother rented a safety deposit box from the
defendant to store jewellery. Rental payments ceased in 1983. In
1988, the defendant opened the box and listed the contents but then
continued to store the jewellery despite non-payment. In 1994, the
box was opened again; a further list of content was made, and some
items of jewellery were removed, with the remainder mixed with
other jewellery from similar boxes and re-stored. In 1997, the
defendant received a letter from the claimant’s agent demanding the
immediate commencement of the process of returning the jewellery.
No response was made. At a meeting between the parties in 1998 the
claimant inspected the remaining jewellery. Proceedings for
conversion were commenced in 2006.
The defendant applied to strike out the claim as being
time-barred. The court held that the claimant’s agent’s letter of
1997 was an unequivocal demand for the return of the jewellery and
that the defendant did not need to respond with an unequivocal
refusal to start time running. Additionally, the claimant knew,
following the meeting in 1998 that some jewellery was missing and
therefore a claim in conversion arose at that time. In either
event, the six-year limitation period had expired before issue of
proceedings and the claim was time barred.
That decision was overturned on appeal. The court held that
there had to be both an unequivocal demand for the return of the
goods and an unequivocal refusal to do so for a cause of action to
arise in conversion. Until there had been an unequivocal refusal,
time did not start to run. Even when the claimant ascertained that
some jewellery was missing, that was not sufficient to create a
cause of action in conversion. The defendant’s actions had not
amounted to a deliberate withholding and the failure to respond to
the claimant’s demands could not, in the circumstances, be deemed
to be an unequivocal refusal. The claim was not therefore time
barred.
US Tariffs are shifting - will you react or anticipate?
Don’t let policy changes catch you off guard. Stay proactive with real-time data and expert analysis.
By GlobalDataComment
An owner of a vehicle who may not have had possession of it for
many years still has the right to bring an action for conversion
for up to six years after the refusal to deliver up. However,
thought needs to be given as to the damages payable which will be
measured at the time of the unequivocal refusal to deliver up
possession. However, remember that conversion can occur in many
other ways, such as if goods pass through a third parties’ hands
(e.g. a sale of a vehicle at auction) where there is no need for a
demand and refusal.
The author is a partner in Wragge & Co LLP’s
Finance, Insolvency, Recoveries and Sales team
