15 May 2008 / Sara Partington , Charlotte Yallop

Issue: 7321 / Categories: Features , Company , Regulatory , Commercial

printer

mail-detail

Retain or return?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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.

The Facts

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

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content

If you are already a subscriber sign in

...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

Retain or return?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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.

The Facts

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

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content

If you are already a subscriber sign in

...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

SourceURL:

Links:

E-newsletter Sign-Up

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

HFW—Simon Petch

HFW—Simon Petch

Global shipping practice expands with experienced ship finance partner hire

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Infrastructure specialist joins as partner in Glasgow office

NEWS

NLJ this week: No such thing as a ‘Welsh seat’

Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot

NLJ this week: Jury reform risks justice for efficiency’s sake

The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’

NLJ this week: Crypto fightback offers ‘new frontier for law’

A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes

NLJ this week: Time to revive the duty to report crime?

After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent

NLJ this week: When are experts truly ‘necessary’?

Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25

back-to-top-scroll