Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977

Introduction

The Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 brings together the common law actions relating to wrongful dealings with personal property (goods/chattels). It does not rewrite the classic torts, but it does tidy up procedure, replace the old tort of detinue, expand the court’s powers to order delivery, and clarify who can sue and what they can recover.

At its core, the Act addresses two frequent wrongs:

• Conversion: intentional dealings with goods that are seriously inconsistent with the person who has the immediate right to possession.
• Trespass to goods: direct interference with goods in someone’s possession, which may be intentional or negligent.

The Act also deals with claims where goods are lost or destroyed while in the hands of a bailee, permits defendants to rely on a third party’s better title (jus tertii), and sets out how damages should be apportioned between people with different interests in the same goods.

What You'll Learn

• What amounts to conversion and trespass to goods
• How the 1977 Act streamlines remedies, including delivery orders
• Who can sue: owners, bailees, bailors, tenants, and finders
• How intention, demand and refusal, and misdelivery operate in conversion
• The jus tertii defence and conversion between co-owners
• How damages are assessed and apportioned under the Act
• Limitation periods and the position on stolen goods and fraud
• Practical steps for litigators and in-house teams dealing with disputed goods

Core Concepts

Conversion: elements and intention

Conversion is dealing with goods in a way that is seriously inconsistent with the rights of the person who has the immediate right to possession. Key points:

• Conduct must be deliberate, not accidental, but the defendant need not know about the claimant’s rights. Good faith and mistake are no defence (Fowler v Hollins (1872) LR 7 QB 616).
• A claimant must have an immediate right to possession at the time of the wrong. Owners without a present right to possess cannot sue (e.g. a landlord cannot sue for conversion of furniture during a tenancy; the tenant can).
• Bailees in possession may sue third parties. A bailor under a bailment at will may also sue, as may a finder against everyone except the true owner (Armory v Delamirie (1722) 1 Str 505).
• The Act creates a route for claims where goods are lost or destroyed while bailed, shifting the focus to the bailee’s duty of care, even in the absence of intentional dealing.

Intention relates to dealing with the goods, not to harming the claimant. A demand for return and an unjustified refusal can evidence an intent to keep the goods adversely to the claimant’s rights.

Trespass to goods: direct interference

Trespass to goods is a direct interference with goods in the possession of another. Highlights:

• Possession, not ownership, is key. The claimant must have possession at the time of interference.
• Interference must be direct (e.g. taking, moving, or damaging the goods). Consequential harm is dealt with through negligence or other residual wrongs.
• Trespass can be intentional or negligent. Accidents alone typically do not suffice, but negligent interference can (Transco Plc v United Utilities Water Plc [2005] EWHC 2784).

Trespass protects the inviolability of goods and the right to quiet possession. It is conceptually distinct from conversion, which focuses on dominion and exclusion.

Common acts amounting to conversion

Examples commonly treated as conversion include:

• Taking goods out of the claimant’s possession
• Destroying or materially altering the goods
• Using the goods as one’s own or asserting ownership over them
• Disposing of goods or purporting to pass title without authority
• Wrongful delivery to a person not entitled to possession (classic carrier/warehouse misdelivery)
• Refusing to deliver up after a lawful demand, where the refusal is unjustified

Mere handling or relocation is not necessarily conversion unless it amounts to an assertion of rights over the goods or a serious interference with possession (Fouldes v Willoughby (1841) 8 M & W 540).

Remedies and damages under the Act

The Act standardises and simplifies relief for wrongful interference:

• Damages are typically measured by the value of the goods at the date of conversion. Courts may consider later price movements where appropriate.
• The court can give an order for delivery (specific delivery), with or without damages, or award damages in lieu where delivery is impossible or inappropriate. This modernises the position after the abolition of detinue.
• Where a defendant has in good faith improved the goods, courts may account for that when framing relief.
• Special damages may be recoverable for consequential losses (e.g. hire charges or lost profits arising directly from the interference).

Importantly, a claimant with a limited interest can no longer recover the full value and keep any excess. Damages are apportioned to match the parties’ respective interests, avoiding double recovery. The court can require identification or joinder of others with an interest.

Jus tertii and co-ownership

Two significant procedural clarifications:

• Jus tertii (section 8): a defendant may now rely on a third party’s better title to reduce or defeat the claim, in whole or in part. This curtails windfall recoveries by mere possessors where someone else plainly has superior rights.
• Co-ownership (section 10): it is no defence that the wrongdoer is a co-owner. Destruction, unauthorised disposal, or conduct purporting to pass the entire title can amount to conversion against the other co-owner(s).

These provisions align recovery with real interests and help courts reach practical outcomes in multi-party ownership situations.

Limitation and residual wrongs

Limitation: actions for wrongful interference with goods are generally subject to a six-year period under the Limitation Act 1980, running from the date of the interference. Key points:

• Successive conversions: time runs from the first conversion, though this can be fact-sensitive.
• Fraud and concealment: where applicable, time runs from discovery or when discovery ought reasonably to have occurred.
• Stolen goods: there are special rules that can extend time against thieves and certain handlers.
• After expiry, title issues can arise; in some cases, the claimant’s title may be extinguished.

Residual wrongs: the Act confirms that wrongful interference with goods includes conversion, trespass to goods, negligence causing damage to goods, and other analogous wrongs (for example, obstructing access to goods). This keeps a broad net for practical disputes about use and damage.

Key Examples or Case Studies

Kuwait Airways Corp v Iraqi Airways Co (Nos 4 & 5) [2002] 2 AC 883

• Issue: Aircraft seized, re-registered, repainted, and used.
• Held: Conversion. The test focuses on deliberate conduct inconsistent with the owner’s rights and a significant encroachment. Physical taking is not required if the owner is excluded from possession.
• Use: Strong authority on intention, dominion, and the seriousness threshold.

Fowler v Hollins (1872) LR 7 QB 616

• Issue: Innocent buyer in a chain of transactions involving misappropriated goods.
• Held: Good faith and mistake do not excuse conversion.
• Use: Parties deal with goods at their own risk where title is defective.

Fouldes v Willoughby (1841) 8 M & W 540

• Issue: Horses moved off a ferry.
• Held: Mere removal is not always conversion; the question is whether there was an intention to assert dominion.
• Use: Useful limit on what counts as conversion.

Armory v Delamirie (1722) 1 Str 505

• Issue: Finder’s rights to a jewel against a goldsmith.
• Held: Finder has a possessory title good against all but the true owner.
• Use: Standing to sue for conversion or trespass is not limited to absolute owners.

Transco Plc v United Utilities Water Plc [2005] EWHC 2784

• Issue: Employee shut a gas valve in error, interrupting supply; no physical damage to pipes.
• Held: Liability for negligent interference under the Act.
• Use: Confirms that trespass/negligence can ground liability without physical damage where possession/use is directly affected.

Duke of Somerset v Cookson (1735) 3 P Wms 390

• Issue: Unique altarpiece.
• Held: Delivery ordered rather than damages.
• Use: Supports orders for delivery where goods are unique or damages are inadequate, now reflected in the Act’s delivery powers.

Practical Applications

• Pin down the right cause of action:

  • Conversion for deliberate, inconsistent dealings or serious exclusion from possession.
  • Trespass to goods for direct interferences with goods in possession, including negligent acts.
  • Negligence or other residual wrongs for consequential interference or damage.

• Confirm who has standing:

  • Immediate right to possession is key for conversion.
  • Possession at the time of interference is key for trespass.
  • Consider tenants vs landlords, bailees vs bailors, and finders.

• Make (and record) a clear demand:

  • A written demand for return helps. An unjustified refusal can evidence conversion and bring the cause of action into sharp focus.

• Bailee cases:

  • Where goods are lost or destroyed in bailment, place the bailee on notice and require proof of due care. Preserve contract terms, handover records, and storage logs.

• Misdelivery and carriers:

  • Treat wrong delivery as conversion. Check bills of lading, warehouse receipts, and instructions. Consider joining intermediaries.

• Co-ownership:

  • If a co-owner sells or destroys goods without authority, consider a conversion claim under section 10. Review any express agreement on dealings.

• Quantifying loss:

  • Start with market value at the date of conversion. Assess any later price changes, special damages (e.g. loss of use), and credit for improvements made in good faith by the defendant.

• Multiple interests:

  • Identify all persons with an interest to avoid double recovery. Expect apportionment. Consider joinder where appropriate.

• Remedies strategy:

  • For unique or specially commissioned goods, seek an order for delivery. Otherwise, frame an alternative claim for damages with or without delivery.

• Limitation:

  • Diary the six-year period. Check for fraud or theft rules that may adjust time. In chains of dealings, analyse when the first conversion occurred.

Summary Checklist

• Identify conversion vs trespass vs negligence
• Confirm who had possession or immediate right to possession
• Record demand and refusal where relevant
• For bailees, require evidence of due care for lost/destroyed goods
• Treat misdelivery as conversion and review all handling documents
• Consider section 8 (jus tertii) and section 10 (co-owners) early
• Quantify damages: market value, special losses, and any credit for improvements
• Address multiple interests to prevent double recovery
• Choose remedy: delivery order, damages, or both
• Check limitation, including fraud and theft rules

Quick Reference