England and Wales Case Law

Ping Fai Yuen v Fun Yung Li & Anor

Claims in conversion are struck out as English law does not permit conversion of intangible property such as Bitcoin; trespass to goods is not struck out at this stage pending possible amendment; security for costs is refused due to overwhelming evidence, assets within jurisdiction, and unreliable cost estimates; substituted service is granted for Second Defendant.

Source excerpt

• Digital assets
• Conversion
• Trespass to goods
• Unjust enrichment
• Breach of confidence
• Misuse of private information

Read case analysis

Winehouse v Parry & Anor

Winehouse v Parry & Anor [2026] EWHC 911 (KB) (20 April 2026)

High Court trial over disputed Amy Winehouse property sold at auction, considering ownership, gifts, conversion, limitation, and fiduciary duty.

• Conversion
• Gifts
• Fiduciary duty
• Limitation periods
• Intestacy
• Ownership of personal property

Read case analysis

Mitchell Winehouse v Naomi Parry & Anor

The High Court dismissed a claim over Amy Winehouse items, finding most were owned by or validly gifted to the defendants, and no fiduciary duty arose.

• Conversion
• Gifts of chattels
• Limitation of actions
• Fiduciary duties
• Abandonment of property
• Gifts-of-chattels

Read case analysis

MHP Food UK Ltd v Sanson Foods Ltd & Ors

MHP Food UK Ltd v Sanson Foods Ltd & Ors [2026] EWHC 619 (Comm) (23 March 2026)

The High Court refused to discharge freezing and proprietary injunctions over alleged misuse of frozen chicken stock, finding a good arguable case and real risk of dissipation.

• Freezing injunctions
• Proprietary injunctions
• Conversion
• Unlawful means conspiracy
• Breach of contract
• Inducing breach of contract

Read case analysis

Yuen v Li & Anor

Yuen v Li & Anor [2026] EWHC 532 (KB) (10 March 2026)

Interlocutory judgment in a Bitcoin misappropriation claim. The court struck out conversion, allowed amendment, and deferred decision on trespass to goods pending further pleading.

• Conversion
• Trespass to goods
• Unjust enrichment
• Proprietary restitution
• Constructive trust
• Breach of confidence

Read case analysis

Alliance Petrochemical Investment (Singapore) PTE Ltd v Mazzagatti & Anor

Alliance Petrochemical Investment (Singapore) PTE Ltd v Mazzagatti & Anor [2025] EWHC 2973 (Comm) (03 December 2025)

The Commercial Court partly set aside permission to serve a Part 20 claim out of the jurisdiction, dismissing it against the directors but allowing it to proceed against Mr Jahanpour.

• Contribution under civil liability (contribution) act 1978
• Jurisdiction and service out of jurisdiction
• Directors' duties and shadow directorship
• Misappropriation and breach of fiduciary duty
• Dishonest assistance
• Knowing receipt

Read case analysis

Estate of Euan McIntyre Lindsay (Deceased) & Anor v Outlook Finance Ltd & Anor

Estate of Euan McIntyre Lindsay (Deceased) & Anor v Outlook Finance Ltd & Anor [2025] EWHC 3100 (KB) (26 November 2025)

The High Court set aside a 2014 Manchester judgment for fraud by Outlook’s director, but also held the claim against the receiver could be reopened despite his innocence.

• Setting aside judgment for fraud
• Laches
• Trespass
• Conversion
• Unjust enrichment
• Undue influence

Read case analysis

The Estate of Euan Mcintyre Lindsay & Anor v Outlook Finance Limited & Anor

The High Court set aside a 2014 Manchester judgment for fraud and ordered a retrial against Outlook Finance and Mr Butcher, rejecting laches and abuse arguments.

• Setting aside judgment for fraud
• Equitable remedies
• Laches
• Agency liability
• Trespass
• Conversion

Read case analysis

Julyan v Vospers Ltd & Anor

Julyan v Vospers Ltd & Anor [2025] EWCC 70 (03 November 2025)

The County Court held that the Julyans jointly owned a Toyota as tenants in common, and that Vospers converted Mr Julyan’s 50% share by buying it from Mrs Julyan without authority.

• Conversion
• Co-ownership of chattels
• Sale of goods act 1979
• Authority to sell
• Res judicata
• Negligence

Read case analysis

Samsung Electronics (UK) Limited v Lux Group Holdings Limited

Summary judgment is granted to Samsung for sums due under the 001 Lease because the lease's set-off exclusion clause is clear and unambiguous, excluding all forms of set-off. Summary judgment is refused for the 002 Lease and counterclaims because there are arguable issues of fact and law regarding insurance claims, oral agreements, title, conversion, and restitution that require trial.

Source excerpt

• Summary judgment
• Set-off clauses
• Oral agreements
• Lease agreements
• Conversion
• Unjust enrichment

Read case analysis