Goods Torts and accession

Trespass to goods – definition?

A wrongful and intentional interference by D with P's FACT OF POSSESSION of a chattel. (Intentional torts – actions must be direct and voluntary, not accidental.)

Trespass to goods – ELEMENTS?

(1) P in possession (2) an intentional act by D with the chattel (3) amounting to an unlawful interference with P's possession.

Trespass to goods – REMEDIES?

(1) Injunction – stop the interference or compel removal (2) Damages – compensation for loss; consequential damages (Thurston v Charles); actionable without loss – exemplary/vindicatory damages available.

CASE: Penfolds Wines – principle + use?

Some control is needed for possession as a social fact – more than mere ownership | Use for element 1 of trespass (is P in possession?).

CASE: Wilson v New Brighton Panel Beaters – principle + use?

D does not have to appreciate their act is wrong or unlawful – conduct must merely be intentional | Use for element 2 of trespass (an innocent D is still liable).

Conversion – definition?

Intentional dealing that denies P's RIGHT TO POSSESSION – someone has converted use of the chattel to their own ends.

Conversion – ELEMENTS?

(1) P has right to immediate possession (2) D's physical act or dealing with the chattel (3) intentional – D may be ignorant of wrongdoing (4) inconsistent with P's rights 'whereby that other is deprived of the use and possession of it' (Kuwait Airways).

Conversion – REMEDY?

Loss or damage always needed | Damages take the form of a fictional sale, assessed on the chattel's value AT THE TIME OF CONVERSION.

CASE: Hollins v Fowler – facts?

Fowler delivered cotton bales to Bayley (a fake agent for Seddon) thinking he'd contracted with Seddon | Bayley sold the cotton to Hollins (real agent for Micholls), who turned it into yarn | Fowler sued Hollins in conversion.

CASE: Hollins v Fowler – held + reasoning + ratio?

Held: Hollins converted – he bought the cotton and helped deliver it to Micholls (physical acts inconsistent with F's rights) | Nemo dat: contract with Bayley invalid, Fowler always owner with right to possession | Ratio: conversion occurs even where the converter genuinely thought they were acting honestly.

Hollins v Fowler – the two exceptions (Blackburn J)?

(1) Bona fide IGNORANCE – merely assisting transfer of custody without knowing ownership was meant to pass (e.g. a courier) (2) Bona fide DOUBT – a finder unsure who owns goods may detain them a reasonable time to clear the doubt; otherwise demand + refusal = conversion.

CASE: Kuwait Airways v Iraqi Airways – facts + held?

IAC re-registered, re-painted and used aircraft belonging to KAC | Held: conversion – physical acts showed intent to keep and use the planes as their own; KAC retained the right to immediate possession (IAC not entitled under international law).

CASE: Kuwait Airways – ratio?

Conversion = encroachment so extensive it excludes the owner from use and possession (cf lesser acts of interference) | 'Mere unauthorised retention' is NOT conversion – there must be an adverse impact; demand and refusal indicates adversity | 'Precise definition of universal application is well-nigh impossible.'

Detinue – definition?

Wrongful detention of another's property – a 'continuing wrong' from unlawful detention until return or judgment | The ONLY action that can have the property itself returned.

Detinue – ELEMENTS?

(1) P has right to immediate possession (2) P demanded return (3) D refused to return (4) D's refusal is unlawful.

Detinue – REMEDIES?

(1) Restoration via High Court possession order – only where chattel has 'special value' or is 'sufficiently unique that damages could not properly compensate' (McKeown) (2) Damages – value at the TIME OF JUDGMENT.

Accession – test?

Two chattels have acceded and cannot be removed without injury to the whole (test of injurious removal) | Only applied 'where it must be applied as a matter of practical necessity' (McKeown).

CASE: McKeown v Cavalier Yachts – facts?

M owned a yacht hull (originally ~$1,700) in C's possession; C sold stock to S in a business sale; S improved the hull at a cost of $24,409 | Both claimed it; M sued S in detinue.

CASE: McKeown v Cavalier Yachts – held + reasoning?

Hull was the PRINCIPAL chattel – the improvements acceded to it, so M owned the yacht | Although improvements were worth much more, they were added gradually and intended to increase the hull's value | Return ordered – yacht had 'sufficient individuality' | Innocent improvers may get a 'fair and just allowance'.

APPLY: X lends his ladder to Y for 3 months (fixed); Z takes it from Y's yard. Who sues Z and in what?

Y has possession and (fixed term) right to possession → Y can sue in trespass/conversion | X lacks right to immediate possession during the term → consider damage to reversionary interest.

APPLY: D innocently buys a stolen bike and refuses the owner's demand to return it. Torts?

Conversion – honest belief no defence (Hollins v Fowler) | Detinue – right to immediate possession, demand, refusal, unlawful → return only if special value/unique (McKeown), else value at judgment.