Odone v Hawarden Services Ltd & Ors

A claimant need only establish a title sufficient to maintain trespass or conversion; absolute title against every possible challenger is unnecessary. Whether storage creates a bailment or merely a licence is highly fact-sensitive. Transfer of possession, the occupier’s control, security arrangements, the parties’ expectations and any storage charge are relevant. A bailee who deliberately misdelivers goods may be liable in conversion even without knowledge of the owner’s rights. Conspiracy by unlawful means requires concerted action, unlawful means and an intention directed towards injury to the claimant. A company director is not personally liable merely because of constitutional control, but may be liable where personal participation or involvement in the tort is proved.

Shannon Odone claimed ownership of aircraft spares stored in three containers at premises operated by Hawarden Services Ltd. She alleged conspiracy, conversion, trespass and related tortious liability against Hawarden Services, Caroline Craft, Mark Petrie and Ray Middleton.

The court found that Odone had a title sufficient to support her claims. The principal issues were whether the storage arrangement created a bailment, whether the removal and sale of the containers amounted to conversion or conspiracy, whether Craft was personally liable, and what loss had been proved.

1. Title. Odone established a title sufficient to sustain claims in trespass and conversion. She was not required to prove title good against every conceivable challenger. The competing case that Libelle owned the aircraft and spares was rejected.
2. Conspiracy. The evidence established concerted action by Petrie and Middleton to obtain money owed by Harry Odone through an appropriation and sale of the containers. However, the conspiracy claim failed because they did not know or believe that Odone was the true owner. The necessary intention was therefore not directed towards injury to her. A straightforward conspiracy to injure was also not established because predominant intention to injure was absent.
3. Bailment. The arrangement between Harry Odone and Hawarden Services was initially a gratuitous bailment and later a bailment for reward. The issue was fact-sensitive. The airport’s security and control arrangements, the expectations of those leaving goods there, Hawarden Services’ ability to exclude persons and relocate the containers, and its assumption of responsibility for safeguarding them showed a transfer of possession and an obligation of safe keeping.
4. Conversion. A bailee must return the goods or permit their collection by the bailor. Hawarden Services intentionally handed over the containers to Petrie and enabled their removal. Relying on the sham Libelle Agreement did not avoid liability. The misdelivery was a conversion, notwithstanding ignorance of the claimant’s title. Middleton was also liable for conversion through Petrie, his agent. There was a technical trespass when the locks were removed, but it added nothing to the conversion claim.
5. Caroline Craft. Although Craft decided that Libelle should be treated as owner, the evidence did not prove that she personally handed over the keys, procured the removal or joined in the relevant concerted acts. She was therefore not liable as a joint tortfeasor.
6. Damages. The sale price of £7,500 was the only properly grounded valuation of the converted goods. The other heads of loss and aggravated damages were dismissed for lack of reliable evidence and, additionally, difficulties of causation and remoteness. Judgment was entered for Odone for £7,500 with interest, with consequential interest and costs to be determined after written submissions.