Thunder Air Ltd v Hilmarsson [2008] EWHC 355 (Ch) (17 March 2008)

Thunder Air Ltd v Hilmarsson [2008] EWHC 355 (Ch) (17 March 2008)

The Defendant was not in possession or control of the goods for purposes of conversion; Avijet had lawful possession under the management agreement. The Defendant's ability to direct Avijet staff did not amount to personal control required for liability. No serious issue to be tried on conversion. English court lacks jurisdiction as Claimant failed to establish a good arguable case of conversion.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 355 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Thunder Air Limited; Defendant: Hilmar Hilmarsson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 March 2008
Procedural Posture
Interim Application for Delivery Up and Injunction Under Torts (interference With Goods) Act 1977 / Effective Return Date; Inter Partes Hearing
Outcome
Application for continuation of injunction refused; proceedings stayed for lack of jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Conversion, Interim Relief, Jurisdiction Under Lugano Convention, Corporate Liability
Tort Law Civil Procedure Jurisdiction Conversion Interim Relief Jurisdiction Under Lugano Convention Corporate Liability

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thunder Air Limited

Claimant

Hilmar Hilmarsson

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Application for Delivery Up and Injunction Under Torts (interference With Goods) Act 1977 / Effective Return Date; Inter Partes Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant was in possession or control of the Claimant's goods for purposes of conversion under the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977
  2. 2 Whether the English court had jurisdiction under the Lugano Convention and Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant is personally liable for conversion as a beneficial owner of Avijet

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant was not in possession or control of the goods for purposes of conversion; Avijet had lawful possession under the management agreement. The Defendant's ability to direct Avijet staff did not amount to personal control required for liability. No serious issue to be tried on conversion. English court lacks jurisdiction as Claimant failed to establish a good arguable case of conversion.

Court Disposition

Application for continuation of injunction refused; proceedings stayed for lack of jurisdiction.

Orders

  • Injunction discharged
  • Permission to amend particulars of claim granted