Robot Arenas Ltd & Anor v Waterf1eld & Anor [2010] EWHC 115 (QB) (08 February 2010)

Robot Arenas Ltd & Anor v Waterf1eld & Anor [2010] EWHC 115 (QB) (08 February 2010)

The Defendants were not entitled to treat the goods as abandoned without clear evidence of intention and act of abandonment by the Claimants. The Defendants failed to make reasonable enquiries before destroying the goods and are liable in conversion. Contributory negligence is not a defence. Damages are limited to the actual loss suffered, not the replacement cost, as the goods had no ongoing commercial value to the Claimants.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 115
Parties
Claimant: Robot Arenas Limited; Claimant: Mr Edward Hoppitt; Defendant: Simon Waterfield; Defendant: Newton Nottingham LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the Defendants.
Legal Topics
Conversion, Bailment, Abandonment of Goods, Damages, Trespass to Goods
Tort Property Law Conversion Bailment Abandonment of Goods Damages Trespass to Goods

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robot Arenas Limited

Claimant

Mr Edward Hoppitt

Claimant

Simon Waterfield

Defendant

Newton Nottingham LLP

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendants are liable in conversion for destruction of the Robot Wars Set.
  2. 2 Whether the goods were abandoned by the Claimants.
  3. 3 Whether the Defendants were entitled to destroy the goods as involuntary or unconscious bailees.

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendants were not entitled to treat the goods as abandoned without clear evidence of intention and act of abandonment by the Claimants. The Defendants failed to make reasonable enquiries before destroying the goods and are liable in conversion. Contributory negligence is not a defence. Damages are limited to the actual loss suffered, not the replacement cost, as the goods had no ongoing commercial value to the Claimants.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Defendants.

Orders

  • Claim dismissed.
  • Counterclaim for mesne profits dismissed.