Sara Partington and Charlotte Yallop revisit the often-ignored law of conversion
The recent High Court case of Schwarzschild v Harrods Ltd [2008] EWHC 521 (QB), [2008] All ER (D) 299 (Mar) has revisited the law of conversion (and its roots alongside detinue) and clarified that, for a cause of action in statutory conversion to arise (and limitation to start to run), both a demand that goods be returned and an unequivocal refusal to return them are required.
The judgment of Mr Justice Eady also sets out a useful review of the law in detinue and in particular the tort of conversion in accordance with the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 (T(IG)A 1977). It will be of interest to practitioners and to any entity whose business involves bailment or the treatment, dealing in, or retention of goods.
In 1955, the defendant contracted with the claimant's mother (M) to rent a safety deposit box for her to store jewellery. Rental payments had ceased in 1983 and, in 1986, after M's death, C inherited the property
