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

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS

NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders

Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners

NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do

A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent

Your magistrates’ court needs you!

Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process

LexisNexis Legal Awards 2026—the winners!

The winners of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2026 have now been announced, marking another outstanding celebration of excellence, innovation, and impact across the legal profession

NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed

Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’

back-to-top-scroll