## Facts

- Club Cruise Entertainment (the claimant) brought a claim against the Department for Transport (the defendant) alleging wrongful interference with its property, specifically a vessel.
- The Department for Transport issued detention notices and imposed restrictions on the vessel's movement.
- Club Cruise Entertainment contended these actions constituted control or dominion over the vessel that was inconsistent with its ownership rights.
- The dispute centered on whether regulatory actions constituted conversion under the tort.
- The court examined the facts in the context of commercial disputes involving regulatory authorities and private entities.

## Issues

1. Whether the Department for Transport's actions in issuing detention notices and restricting the vessel's movement amounted to an act of control or dominion inconsistent with the claimant’s rights sufficient to constitute the tort of conversion.
2. Whether intentionality and a right to immediate possession were established for the tort of conversion in this context.
3. Whether regulatory actions by authorities can give rise to liability for conversion.

## Decision

- The court held that the Department for Transport's actions, including issuing detention notices and restricting the vessel's movement, constituted acts of control or dominion over the vessel.
- These actions were found to be inconsistent with the claimant’s rights as owner, as they effectively denied the claimant's ability to use or dispose of the vessel.
- The court emphasized that liability for conversion requires an intentional act rather than mere negligence or incidental conduct.
- The court clarified that control or dominion can suffice to establish conversion even where there is no physical possession of the goods.
- Regulatory actions that go beyond permissible scope and deny the owner's rights can result in liability for conversion.

## Legal Principles

- Conversion is actionable per se: the claimant need not show actual damage, only an intentional act inconsistent with the owner’s rights.
- The tort requires (i) the claimant’s right to immediate possession, (ii) an intentional act of control or dominion by the defendant, and (iii) that such act denies the owner’s rights.
- Control or dominion for conversion can include regulatory acts such as detention or restrictions, not limited to physical possession or tangible goods.
- The defendant’s conduct must be deliberate, and intent is a necessary element for establishing conversion.
- Conversion remains consistent in common law jurisdictions, with possible extension to intangible rights sufficiently connected to physical goods.

## Conclusion

The court in Club Cruise Entertainment v Department for Transport [2008] EWHC 2794 (Comm) confirmed that intentional regulatory actions amounting to control or dominion over goods, when inconsistent with an owner’s rights, may constitute conversion even without physical possession, delineating clear legal boundaries in commercial and regulatory contexts.
