Interest in Goods

Question 1

Interest in Goods - Topics

Answer 1

• Trespass to Goods
• Trespass to Goods - Defences
• Detinue - Principles
• Detinue - Defences & Remedies
• Conversion - Principles
• Conversion - Case Law

Question 2

Trespass to Goods

Answer 2

• Wrongfully and directly interfering with the possession of goods
• Interference can arise from:
  i) removing the goods from Plaintiff’s possession,
  ii) moving the goods from one place to another, or
  iii) damaging the goods
• Interference must be direct
• ESB v. Hastings: Defendant must have acted intentionally or negligently.
• Bros v. CIÉ: Interfering with possession, even by the owner, can be trespass.

Question 3

Trespass to Goods - Defences

Answer 3

• Consent
• Defence of Property
• Necessity
• Lawful Authority

Jennings v. Quinn: public interest may require interference with possession by authorities

Question 4

Detinue - Principles

Answer 4

• Wrongful refusal to return the goods after demand has been made by the plaintiff.
• Detention must be adverse to the plaintiff’s right to the chattel.
• King v. Walsh [1932]: The defendant must be made aware of the demand to return.
• Cullen v. Barclay (1881): A bailee holding onto a chattel after contract termination will not be liable for detinue if the bailor didn’t request the return of the chattel. Can sue for breach of contract.

Question 5

Detinue - Defences & Remedies

Answer 5

• Poole v. Burns [1944]: A bailee who is in doubt as to the ownership is legally entitled to detain that property for a reasonable time in order to confirm ownership.
• Dunne v. DPP [2002]: Requirement to keep the goods as evidence for a criminal prosecution was accepted as a valid defence to a claim for detinue.
• Remedies: return of the goods or their value and damages for detinue.
• Whitely v. Hilt [1918]: Courts unlikely to order return, unless the chattel is of special value or interest to the plaintiff.

Question 6

Conversion - Principles

Answer 6

• Dealing with the goods in a manner inconsistent with the right of the plaintiff. E.g. pawning a person’s goods or selling a person’s goods to another
• Doesn’t require intention to permanently deprive the owner of the goods (joy ride)
• What matters is the intention to do the act; not need for intention to actually convert
• Abuse of possession also arises where a chattel is wilfully destroyed
• Damage to chattel without destroying its identity is trespass but not conversion
• Plaintiff needs to show possession or an immediate right to possess the goods
• Damages are assessed at the date article was converted (as compared with detinue where the value of the chattel is assessed at the date of judgment)

Question 7

Conversion - Case Law

Answer 7

• Fouldes v. Willoughby: Ferry operator turning horses loose on arrival held not to be conversion
• Moorgate Mercantile v. Finch: Car impounded by customs as result of defendant’s action was accepted as conversion.
• British Wagon Company v. Shortt: Defendant’s refusal to hand back machinery unconditionally held liable for either detinue or conversion “converted to his own use”.
• Hollins v. Fowler: Cotton broker held liable for conversion when he resold the cotton to another person that he innocently bought from a fraudster.