JOHN AIREY v. COMPUTER SERVICES

A possessory lien ordinarily secures the lien-holder’s proper charges, but not a separate claim for keeping the goods after the lien arises, absent an agreement to that effect. A person whose property is detained and who disputes the claimed sum may use County Court Rules, Order 30, rule 6 to pay the disputed amount into court pending resolution and obtain return of the property. The application for leave to appeal was adjourned so the parties could resolve the return of the computer and any remaining dispute without further cost.

Mr Airey delivered his computer to Computer Services for repair and replacement of its hard disk. A dispute arose over an additional charge of £29 and the defendants retained the computer. An arbitrator accepted the defendants’ account and found that Mr Airey owed the sum. Judge Hammerton treated the matter as one of fact for the arbitrator and dismissed Mr Airey’s claim.

The lower decisions did not determine what should happen to the computer. Mr Airey applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal. The central issue was whether the defendants could retain the computer under a lien, including for storage charges, and how the dispute could be resolved procedurally.

Disposition. Lord Justice Waller gave the first judgment and Lord Justice Brooke agreed. The application for leave to appeal was adjourned.

1. In the absence of an arrangement providing otherwise, a person exercising a lien over property may retain it for charges properly secured by the lien. The lien does not ordinarily support a further claim for storage or keeping charges after the property has been detained. Lord Justice Waller referred to paragraph 544 of Halsbury’s Laws of England, volume 28.
2. Where the entitlement to the sum secured by the lien is disputed, Order 30, rule 6 of the County Court Rules permits the person whose property is detained to pay the claimed sum into court pending resolution of the dispute. On the court’s view, Mr Airey could have paid the £29 into court and obtained return of his computer.
3. The court considered that, if Mr Airey paid the £29, there was no reason why the computer should not be returned and the defendants had no right to storage charges. Because the sum was small and the defendants were not represented, the matter was adjourned to allow an amicable resolution. If the defendants maintained that storage charges were secured or relied on another basis for withholding the computer, the application could return before the Court of Appeal.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The application for leave to appeal was adjourned.
• Brighton County Court: Judge Hammerton dismissed Mr Airey’s claim, treating the dispute as a question of fact for the arbitrator.
• Arbitration: The arbitrator accepted the defendants’ version of events and found that Mr Airey owed £29.