LAW OF TORT

Trespass to Chattels
• Intentionally or negligently interfering with a chattel in the
possession of another.
• The act constituting trespass must be either intentional or
negligent. Fowler v Lanning (1959) 1 QB 426 National
Coal Bard v Evans (1951) 2 KB 861 Halaby v Halaby
(1961) 1 GLR 229 mistakenly moving the plaintiffs gods
along with the defendants was held not to be trespass.
• There is no liability for involuntary acts
• The interference must be direct
• The plaintiff must be in possession of the goods at the
time of the unlawful interference.
• Possession here means physical control and the
intention to exercise his control. ie factum and animus
• Trespass to goods protects plaintiffs interest in
• a. the retention of the possession of his goods
• b. the physical condition of his goods
• c. the inviolability of his goods
• Trespass to goods takes various forms such as taking
goods out of the possession of another, destroying or
damage to it or using the goods of others and
wrongfully moving goods
• It is actionable per se the mere wrongful moving or
touching of a chattel without proof of actual damage
caused is actionable Kirk v Gregory (1876) Ex D 55
Fouldes v Willougby (1841) 8 M & W 540
• ‘The plaintiff in an action of trespass must at the time of the
trespass have the present possession of the goods either
actual or constructive or a legal right to immediate
possession’ Johnson v Diprose (1893) QBD 513
• In Hamps v Darby (1948) 2 KB 311 the defendant a farmer
had a valuable crop of peas on his land. The plaintiff kept
racing pigeons and released them daily to exercise them.
Nine of the pigeons attacked the pea crop for which the
defendants first shouted to chase them then shot them
without first firing a warning shot he killed four of the pigeons.
Damages awarded to the plaintiff . The court held that the
owner of tamed pigeon continues to have property in the
possession of his birds and as no justification for the
shooting was established due to alternative actions that may
have been taken the defendant was liable.
• When a plaintiff has been deprived of the goods he is
entitled to their value by way of damages
• A plaintiff may also recover general damages for the loss
of use of the goods
Conversion
• It is an intentional interference or dealing with the chattel
which is seriously inconsistent with the possession or right to
immediate possession of another
• It protects the claimants interest in the dominion and control
of his goods not the physical condition of the goods.
• ‘ Conversion is the principal means by which English law
protects ownership of goods. Misappropriation of another's
goods constitute conversion. Committing this tort gives rise
to an obligation to pay damages. Per lord Nicholls Kuwaiti
Airways Corporation v Iraqi Airways (Nos 4 and 5) (2002)
AC 883
• It requires an intentional interference with the goods Ashby v
Tolhurst (1937) 2 KB 242
• To amount to conversion the intent of the defendant must be to
deal with the plaintiffs goods by exercising dominion over them
on his own behalf or on behalf of someone else. Caxton
Publishing Co ltd v Sutherland Publishing co ltd 1939 ac 178

• Youngdong Industries Ltd v Roro Services per Date-Bah JSC

• …. Mere unauthorised retention of another's’ goods is not
conversion of them. Mere possession of another's’ goods
without title is not necessarily consistent with the rights of the
owner. To constitute conversion detention must be adverse to
the owner excluding him from the goods. It must be
accompanied by an intention to keep the goods’
•.
• Conversion includes taking goods out of the possession of
another without lawful justification Fouldes v Willougby (1841)
151 ER 1153 per Lord Abinger …in order to constitute a
conversion, it is necessary either that the party taking the
goods should intend some use to be made of them by himself
or by those for whom he acts, or that owing to his act the
goods are destroyed or consumed to the prejudice of the
lawful owner
• ‘ ..A simple asportation of a chattel without any intention of
making any further use of it although it may be a sufficient
foundation for an action of trespass is not sufficient to
establish conversion’
• In order to constitute conversion, the plaintiff must have either
actual possession or a right to immediate possession at the
time of the interference .
• Possession is the power to control and the intention to exclude
all others from the enjoyment of the chattel.
• South Staffordshire Water Co v Sharman (1896) 2 QB 44 the
possession of land carries with it in general by our law
possession of everything which is attached to it or under that
land and in the absence of a better title elsewhere the right to
possess it. . It makes no difference that the possessor is not
aware of the things existence… Elwes v Brigg Gas Co (1886)
33 ChD 562 London Corporation v Appleyard (1963) 2 ALL ER
834
• An occupier of premises has rights superior to a finder over
goods in or attached to land or building if before the find he has
manifested an intention to exercise control over the buildings
and the things that may be upon it or in it. Bridges v
Hawkesworth (1851) 21 LJQB 75
• Thus the occupier or owner of a land to which things are
attached has a right to them when found. Note it applies to
things attached to the land only.
• Finders or occupiers are obliged to take reasonable steps to
trace the true owner.
• Armory v Delamirie (1722) 93 ER 664 Pratt CJ held: the finder
of a jewel though he does not by such a finding acquire an
absolute property or ownership yet has such a property as will
enable him to keep it against all but the rightful owner and can
consequently bring an action in trover. The measure of
damages should be assessed at the value of the jewel of the
finest water that would fill the socket’.
• See also Hannah v Peel (1945) LB 509
• The finder of a chattel acquires no right over it unless it has
been abandoned or lost and he takes it in his care and control.
He acquires a right to keep it against all but the true owner or
owner who could assert a prior right to keep the chattel which
was subsisting at the time when the finder took the chattel into
his care and control Packer v British Airways Board (1982)
QB 1004 per Donaldsn LJ

• A servant or agent who finds goods in the course of his

employment does so on behalf of his employer who acquires
the finders right. Willey v Synan (1937) 57 CLR 200
• It is conversion to seize goods under legal process without
justification eg seizing goods to satisfy a debt.
• Making a plaintiff hand over goods under duress is conversion
Grainger v Hill 1838 4 Bing NC 212
• Refusal to surrender goods upon lawful and reasonable
demand is conversion.
• Conversion can be for a short duration thus if a person rides a
horse and then redelivers to the plaintiff it is still conversion
likewise using a persons car for a joy ride Aitken Agencies Ltd v
Richardson (1967) NZLR 65
• Only tangible goods can be converted but cheques shares
insurance represented by documents can be converted Lloyds
Banks v Chartered Bank of India Australia and China (1929) 1
KB 40
• To destroy goods can be conversion if the act complained of is
of such a degree as to amount to destruction of the goods then
it may be conversion. To substitute water for liquor is
conversion Richardson v Atkinson (1723) 1 stra 576
• Intentional destruction of goods in possession of another is
conversion negligent loss is not
• A mere bargain of sale that is a purported sale of chattels will
not operate as a conversion if unaccompanied by delivery of
possession or other interference with the character of the actual
possession. Australian Provincial Assurance Co Ltd v Coroneo
1938 38 SR (NSW) 700
• A buyer under a sale transaction who has not paid up the
purchase price cannot sue in conversion. Lord v Price (1873)
LR 9 Exch 5
• If a delivery man mistakenly delivers goods to the wrong person
he commits conversion. Youle v Harbottle 1791 Peake 69 NP
• It is also not conversion for a bailee without notice of the true
owner to return goods to the person from whom he received the
goods;
• The voluntary reception of goods from a seller who has no title
to them is conversion.
• It is conversion for a banker to receive a cheque from a person
with no title and to credit the persons account. First Art Society
v Union Bank of London 1886 17 QBD 705
• If however the defendant in good faith merely receives the
goods as carrier or warehouseman it is not concession. Hollings
v Fowler (1875) lR 7 hl 757
• Where goods are sold in open market, a buyer will obtain a
good title even if the seller did not have a good title if he acted
in good faith and had no notice of the defect in title
• S 30 sale of goods act 1962 Ghana act 137 ‘where a
mercantile agent is with the consent of the owner in
possession of goods or of the documents of title to goods, a
sale, pledge or any other disposition for value of the goods
documents of title made by the mercantile agent apparently in
the ordinary course of the mercantile agents business as a
mercantile agent, is as valid as if the mercantile agent were
expressly authorised by the owner of the goods to make that
disposition if the person taking under the disposition acts in
good fair and did not have notice at the time of disposition that
the mercantile agent does not have authority to make the
disposition
• Where a seller with a voidable title sells the goods before the
title is voided the purchaser will get a good title which cannot be
later called off provided he purchased it in god faith without
notice of the defect in title s 29 Sale of Goods Act Ghana

• In order to maintain a claim, the plaintiff must have possession

or right to immediate possession at the time of the conversion.
Gordon v Harper (1796) 7 Term Rep 9
• A bailee of goods has lawful possession and so can maintain
an action in conversion against any person who interferes with
that possession.
• Where a bailement is at will the bailor may sue for conversion
as he is deemed to have an immediate right to possession
• Liens are rights to retain possession of a chattel until a debt is
paid. The holder of a lien may sue in conversion. If a holder of a
lien parts with possession of the goods, he loses his lien and
his act if wrongful is conversion
• Where goods are sold on credit, the buyer could sue the seller
in conversion if the seller wrongfully sells the goods to a third
party. Bloxam v Saunders 1825 4 b & c 941
• a licensee may be able to sue in conversion Northam v
Bowden 1855 11 Exch 70
• The claimant in an action for conversion is entitled to recover
the full value of the goods converted. However, where the
claimant has a limited interest in the gods he cannot recover full
value
• A hire purchaser who is wrongfully dispossessed by the hire
purchase owner will be entitled to the value of the goods less
any unpaid instalments. Standard Electric Apparatus
Laboratories Pty Ltd v Stenner (1960) NSWR 447
• Where the plaintiffs title to sue in conversion is based on a right
to possession rather than actual possession , damages will be
limited to the value of the interest rather than the full value of
the chattel Chinery v Viall (1860) 5 H&N 288
• If the act of conversion is a sale and by the time the plaintiff is
aware the value of the goods have increased, the plaintiff can
recover the higher value. Chubb Cash Ltd v John Crilley and
Son (1983) 2 ALL ER 294
• If the plaintiff incurs pecuniary loss as a direct consequence of
the conversion, he may recover this as a special damage in
addition to the market value of the goods provided the damage
is not remote. Roberts v Roberts (1957) 2 ALL ER 294
• The courts will reduce the damages by the amount of their value
at the time if the defendant returns the goods before trial
Solloway v Mclaughing (1938) AC 247 the action for damages
can be stayed if
• the defendant offers to hand over the property in dispute and
pay nominal damages . Hiort v the London North western
Railway Co (1879) 4 Ex D 188
 Passing off
• The selling or carrying on of business in such a manner as to
mislead the public into the belief that the goods or business of
the defendant are the same as the plaintiffs.
• It protects traders against unfair practices.
• You cannot put your goods up for sale purporting to be those
of a competitor.
• Where passing off is proven the plaintiff is entitled to an
injunction and damages for any losses incurred as well as an
account of any profits made by the defendant
• Passing off includes
• where the defendant markets a product as that of the claimant
• Trading under a name so closely resembling that of the plaintiff
as to be mistaken for it by the public
• Selling goods under the plaintiffs name or under a name so
similar to that of the plaintiff as to be mistaken for it. Hendriks v
Montague 1881 17 Ch D 638
• Selling goods with the trademark of the plaintiff so as to mislead
the public into believing that the goods concerned are the
plaintiffs goods
• Imitating the appearance of the plaintiffs goods so as to deceive
the public
• The defendants conducted must be calculated to deceive
• In Bollinger v Costa Brava Wine Co ltd (1960) Ch D 262
an injunction was granted to forbid the use of the
misleading description Spanish champagne as it was not
made with grapes grown in the champagne region of
France.
• White Hudson& Co v Asian Organisation Ltd (1964) 1
WLR 1466. The plaintiff was granted an injunction to stop
another company selling sweets in similar red colour
wrapping without adequately distinguishing it.
• Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd v Borden Inc (the Jiff
Lemon Case) (1990) 1 ALL ER 873
• Per Lord Oliver in Jif lemon Case
• ‘ the essence of the action of passing off is a deceit
practiced on the public and it can be no answer in a case
where it is demonstrable that the public has been or will
be deceived, that they would not have been if they had
been more careful more literate or more perspicacious.
Customers have to be taken as they are found’
• Interference with contractual relations
• Lumley v Gye (1853) 2 Ex B 216 a theatre owner who
encouraged a singer to break her contract with another
theatre was held liable.
• D.C Thompson & Co Ltd v Deakin (1952) Ch 646 it was held:
the tort is committed if a person without justification knowingly
and intentionally interferes with a contract between two
persons.
• There must be a valid contract
• It must be intentional and there must knowledge of the
contract Torquay Hotel Co Ltd v Cousins. Emerald
Construction Co Ltd v Lowthian (1966) 1 WLR 691
• No liability if the termination of the contract is lawful
• Such interference might include:
• Direct persuasion to break the contract or through an
intermediary. Camden v Forcey (1940) Ch 352
• Direct prevention from executing the contract GWK Ltd v
Dunlop Rubber Co Ltd (19260 42 TLR 376
• Unlawful indirect prevention or intervention
• If a servant acting within the scope of his authority induces his
master to break a contract, the servant cannot be sued. Said v
Butt (1920) 3 KB 497
• Defence: Justification
• Brimelow v Casson (1924) 1 Ch 302 a defendant who induced
contracts to be broken to protect girls from prostitution was
held to be justified .