Mitigation and Conversion
Mitigation and Conversion
Uzinterimpex JSC v. Standard Bank Plc 1. Introduction Uzinterimpex JSC v. Standard Bank Plc 1 is a case of note for the tort of conversion. Previously there had been no serious consideration of the role of mitigation in this complex but often ignored tort. Whilst notoriously difficult to define 2 conversion is an important tort in commercial practice. Lord Hoffmann has stated that “[t]he tort exists to protect proprietary or possessory rights in property; it is committed by an act inconsistent with those rights and it is a tort of strict liability”. 3 Being the nearest that English law has to a proprietary action to protect rights in personal property, it is the tort you would resort to if you had been dispossessed of your goods. Whilst on the surface conversion is tortious in form, it is often proprietary in function. 4 There are three noticeable forms of conversion. 5 The first is where it is used to recover 1. [2008] EWCA Civ 819; [2008] Bus LR 1762; [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 456 . 2. Kuwait Airways Corpn v. Iraqi Airways Co (Nos 4 & 5) [2002] UKHL 19; [2002] 2 AC 883 (“KAC”) [39], per Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead. 3. KAC , [129]. 4. WVH Rogers (ed), Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort , 17th edn (London, 2006), 745. 5. A Tettenborn, “Conversion, Tort and Restitution”, ch 32 of N Palmer and E McKendrick (eds), Interests in Goods , 2nd edn (London, 1998), 825. CASE AND COMMENT 221
220-226
Morgan, Phillip
14c01371-182d-48c6-8fe8-b3e36cf71fa2
27 May 2010
Morgan, Phillip
14c01371-182d-48c6-8fe8-b3e36cf71fa2
Morgan, Phillip
(2010)
Mitigation and Conversion.
Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly, .
Abstract
Uzinterimpex JSC v. Standard Bank Plc 1. Introduction Uzinterimpex JSC v. Standard Bank Plc 1 is a case of note for the tort of conversion. Previously there had been no serious consideration of the role of mitigation in this complex but often ignored tort. Whilst notoriously difficult to define 2 conversion is an important tort in commercial practice. Lord Hoffmann has stated that “[t]he tort exists to protect proprietary or possessory rights in property; it is committed by an act inconsistent with those rights and it is a tort of strict liability”. 3 Being the nearest that English law has to a proprietary action to protect rights in personal property, it is the tort you would resort to if you had been dispossessed of your goods. Whilst on the surface conversion is tortious in form, it is often proprietary in function. 4 There are three noticeable forms of conversion. 5 The first is where it is used to recover 1. [2008] EWCA Civ 819; [2008] Bus LR 1762; [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 456 . 2. Kuwait Airways Corpn v. Iraqi Airways Co (Nos 4 & 5) [2002] UKHL 19; [2002] 2 AC 883 (“KAC”) [39], per Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead. 3. KAC , [129]. 4. WVH Rogers (ed), Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort , 17th edn (London, 2006), 745. 5. A Tettenborn, “Conversion, Tort and Restitution”, ch 32 of N Palmer and E McKendrick (eds), Interests in Goods , 2nd edn (London, 1998), 825. CASE AND COMMENT 221
This record has no associated files available for download.
More information
Published date: 27 May 2010
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 155501
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/155501
PURE UUID: e060b605-e311-4675-8397-fbfe1b3c3e07
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 28 May 2010 10:52
Last modified: 10 Dec 2021 18:13
Export record
Contributors
Author:
Phillip Morgan
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics