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, as possessors, should have made reasonable enquiries before destroying the goods. Their failure to do so rendered them liable in conversion. Damages were to be assessed based on the actual loss to the Claimants, not the replacement cost, given the lack of commercial utility of the destroyed goods.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 115 (QB)
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; Claim dismissed.
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 destruction of the Robot Wars Set by the Defendants constituted conversion or was justified by abandonment.
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants were involuntary or unconscious bailees and their duties regarding the goods.
  3. 3 Whether contributory negligence is a defence to conversion.

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, as possessors, should have made reasonable enquiries before destroying the goods. Their failure to do so rendered them liable in conversion. Damages were to be assessed based on the actual loss to the Claimants, not the replacement cost, given the lack of commercial utility of the destroyed goods.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Defendants; Claim dismissed.

Orders

  • Claim dismissed.
  • Counterclaim for mesne profits/use and occupation not allowed as set-off against damages, as no damages awarded.