Egonu v Nash & Co Solicitors

The Court of Appeal refused permission for a further appeal (second stage) from the dismissal of a claim struck out below. The appellant advanced two heads of complaint: alleged unlawful racial discrimination under the Race Relations Act 1976 and a claim of conversion (wrongful interference with goods). The court held that the Race Relations Act did not extend to the circumstances relied upon and, in any event, the complaint was out of time under the six-month period prescribed by the Act. As to conversion, the court held there was no pleaded or proved exercise of dominion by the solicitors inconsistent with the claimant's ownership; the solicitors had held the items to permit collection and thereby acknowledged ownership. Permission to appeal was refused because there was no realistic or arguable ground to overturn the lower courts.

Background and parties:

The appellant, Mr Egonu, and a company connected to him commenced proceedings in Plymouth County Court against Nash & Co, solicitors who acted for his former wife in matrimonial proceedings. The claim was struck out by District Judge Troman on 26 May 2011 and an appeal to HHJ Neligan was dismissed on 18 August 2011. Mr Egonu sought a second stage appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Nature of the claim and relief sought:

• The appellant alleged racial discrimination under the Race Relations Act 1976 arising from statements in an affidavit by his former wife identifying him as "Nigerian" and asserting that the solicitors advised that description.
• The appellant also alleged conversion (described in the judgment as wrongful interference with goods) by the solicitors in relation to personal property left at the former matrimonial home.

Issues framed by the court:

• Whether the Race Relations Act 1976 applied to the facts alleged and whether the claim was time-barred by the six-month period in the Act.
• Whether the facts pleaded and those shown on the underlying material established the tort of conversion or wrongful interference with goods, specifically whether there had been an exercise of dominion inconsistent with ownership.

Court's reasoning and disposition:

The court held that the Race Relations Act did not embrace the circumstances of alleged statements in litigation of the kind before the family court; Part 1 and Sections 1 and 2 and Part 2 of the Act did not apply to the case as pleaded. Further, the relevant complaint arose from an affidavit dated 17 December 2009 and proceedings brought 20 July 2010 were outside the six-month period required by the Act; the Act does not contain the latent discovery provisions analogous to personal injury limitation rules. On the conversion claim the court explained that a fundamental element is proof of an exercise of dominion over the goods; the solicitors had held the goods at their client's instruction to facilitate collection and did not deal with them inconsistently with ownership. The court concluded there was no realistic prospect of success and refused the application for permission to appeal.

The application for permission to pursue a further appeal was refused and the appeal was dismissed. The Court held that (a) the alleged racial discrimination did not fall within the ambit of the Race Relations Act 1976 and the complaint was in any event time-barred by the six-month period prescribed by the Act; and (b) the claim of conversion/wrongful interference with goods could not be made out because there was no exercise of dominion by the solicitors inconsistent with the claimant's ownership. Accordingly there was no realistic prospect of success on either head.

District Judge Troman struck out the claim on 26 May 2011. The claimants appealed and on 18 August 2011 HHJ Neligan dismissed that appeal. The present application to the Court of Appeal (second stage) was refused on 8 May 2012 (Neutral Citation: [2012] EWCA Civ 673).