Schwarzschild v Harrods Ltd [2008] EWHC 521 (QB) (19 March 2008)

Schwarzschild v Harrods Ltd [2008] EWHC 521 (QB) (19 March 2008)

Summary judgment was inappropriate because it was not clear that the limitation defence would necessarily succeed; disputed facts and absence of unequivocal demand and refusal meant the Claimant had a real prospect of resisting the limitation defence.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 521
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Helga Henriette Schwarzschild; Respondent/defendant: Harrods Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 March 2008
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment Granted by Master Yoxall
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Conversion, Limitation, Bailment, Summary Judgment
Tort Civil Procedure Conversion Limitation Bailment Summary Judgment

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Helga Henriette Schwarzschild

Appellant/claimant

Harrods Limited

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment Granted by Master Yoxall

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim for conversion was time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980
  2. 2 Whether there was an unequivocal demand and refusal sufficient to constitute statutory conversion under s.2(2) Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977
  3. 3 Whether summary judgment was appropriate given disputed facts

Ratio Decidendi

Summary judgment was inappropriate because it was not clear that the limitation defence would necessarily succeed; disputed facts and absence of unequivocal demand and refusal meant the Claimant had a real prospect of resisting the limitation defence.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order for summary judgment set aside