Kani v London Borough of Barnet

Where goods are wrongfully detained but later returned, damages are confined to losses proved to have resulted from the detention. A claimant relying on a fall in value must prove a lost opportunity to sell during the relevant period. A communication inviting collection and dialogue may amount to an effective return, even if it requests documents already held. A statutory special return regime applies where its conditions are met, and a local authority may verify ownership through the DVLA. The appeal was allowed in part because damage to lawfully seized vehicles also required assessment.

The appellant, a used-car dealer, counterclaimed for damages after the respondent local authority seized 17 vehicles and related documentation. Three vehicles were removed under the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978; 14 were seized under the London Local Authorities Act 1990. The Central London County Court made an anti-social behaviour order and awarded £3,213.66 for repair and retrieval costs relating to certain vehicles, but did not assess damage to the vehicles seized under the 1990 Act.

The appellant appealed on five grounds, including the effect of a letter inviting him to collect the vehicles, the statutory deadline for return, the date on which DVLA information was received, and damages for wrongful detention. The central issues were whether the Recorder had applied the correct statutory return period and approach to damages.

The appeal was allowed in part. Lady Justice Black gave the judgment, with Lord Justice Toulson and Lord Justice Ward agreeing.

1. Damage to lawfully seized vehicles. The Recorder should have assessed damage sustained by vehicles seized under the London Local Authorities Act 1990, as well as damage to the unlawfully seized vehicles. The respondents accepted that compensation could be due for damage occurring while both categories were in their custody. The issue was remitted because the appellate court lacked sufficient evidence to quantify the claim.
2. Effect of the return letter. The letter of 3 September 2008 should have been treated as a good-faith attempt to return the vehicles and as an invitation to collect them or open a dialogue. The request for ownership documents, although unnecessary in relation to documents already held, did not invalidate the attempt. The appellant could not disregard the letter and claim damages for detention continuing thereafter.
3. Recovery of removal and storage costs. The letter did not make release conditional on payment. It stated that unpaid costs would be added to the county court claim, which was what occurred.
4. Statutory return period. Section 38B of the London Local Authorities Act 1990 was not confined to cases where the council lacked any view about ownership. A council could consult the DVLA to safeguard against returning a vehicle to the wrong person. The conditions in section 38B(2) and (3) were satisfied, so the special return period in section 38B(4), running from supply of the relevant particulars, governed instead of the general rule in section 38(4C)(e).
5. Receipt date. The Recorder was entitled to accept evidence that the DVLA particulars were received on or around 21 August 2008. Earlier documents did not provide a proper basis for disturbing that finding, particularly since the evidence said to establish an earlier date had not been effectively put to the witness.
6. Wrongful detention damages. Applying Brandeis Goldschmidt & Co v Western Transport [1981] QB 864, the appellant bore the burden of proving loss caused by detention. His claim based on reduced vehicle values required evidence that he had lost an opportunity to sell during the detention period. The Recorder was therefore correct to make no award under that head, notwithstanding the court’s disquiet about valuation submissions not tested in cross-examination.

The assessment of damage to vehicles seized under the 1990 Act was remitted to the county court. The balance of the appeal was dismissed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2010] EWCA Civ 818, the appeal was allowed in part. Assessment of damage to vehicles seized under the London Local Authorities Act 1990 was remitted to the county court, and the balance of the appeal was dismissed.
2. Central London County Court: Mr Recorder Francis QC made an order dated 9 July 2009, including a five-year anti-social behaviour order, and awarded £3,213.66 for specified repair and retrieval costs.