Zabihi v Janzemini & Ors [2009] EWCA Civ 851 (30 July 2009)

Zabihi v Janzemini & Ors [2009] EWCA Civ 851 (30 July 2009)

In the absence of reliable evidence as to the precise identity and value of the converted jewelry, the court must do its best to assess damages based on the available evidence. The presumption in Armory v Delamirie is not applicable where both parties have withheld the truth and the goods' characteristics are uncertain. The proper measure is the open market value, not retail value, and non-expert evidence may be considered if logically relevant.

Citation
[2009] EWCA Civ 851
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Zabihi; Defendant/appellant: Janzemini & Ors
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; cross-appeal dismissed; damages varied.
Legal Topics
Conversion, Damages, Burden of Proof, Valuation of Chattels
Property Law Tort Law Conversion Damages Burden of Proof Valuation of Chattels

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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zabihi

Claimant/respondent

Janzemini & Ors

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the proper measure of damages for conversion when the precise identity and value of the converted chattels cannot be established?
  2. 2 Is the principle in Armory v Delamirie applicable where both parties have given dishonest evidence and the goods' characteristics are uncertain?
  3. 3 Can non-expert evidence be used to assess value in the absence of reliable expert evidence?

Ratio Decidendi

In the absence of reliable evidence as to the precise identity and value of the converted jewelry, the court must do its best to assess damages based on the available evidence. The presumption in Armory v Delamirie is not applicable where both parties have withheld the truth and the goods' characteristics are uncertain. The proper measure is the open market value, not retail value, and non-expert evidence may be considered if logically relevant.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; cross-appeal dismissed; damages varied.

Orders

  • Award of damages to Mr Zabihi reduced from £125,000 to £30,000.
  • Both appeals dismissed except as to variation of damages.