Sheianov v Sarner International Ltd

A particular lien requires more than work done with, using, or in relation to a chattel. The bailee must perform work on the chattel which improves it or gives it additional value. The improvement may be non-physical, but must be inherent in the chattel itself. A lien cannot attach to an incorporeal subject matter. Where an inseverable claim covers both lien-generating and non-lien-generating work, no particular lien arises. These principles apply even where the work creates a valuable exhibition or object around the detained chattel: separate additions do not improve or become part of the chattel itself.

The claimants sought delivery up of 27 vintage motorcycles retained by the defendant. The defendant had designed and begun creating a temporary touring exhibition under an agreement with a company connected to the claimants, but an invoice for £524,628.90 remained unpaid.

The defendant relied on a common-law particular lien. The claimants applied for summary judgment under CPR r 24.2, alternatively strike-out relief, arguing that the defendant had no real prospect of establishing either a superior possessory position or a lien. The central issue was whether the defendant’s design, research, figures and exhibition work constituted work on, and improved, the motorcycles.

1. Disposition. The claimants obtained summary judgment on their claim and on the counterclaim. The defendant was ordered to deliver up the motorcycles to the claimants or their nominated agent.
2. Summary judgment. The court applied the settled test under CPR r 24.2. The defendant had to show a realistic prospect of successfully defending the claim, and the court could decide a short point of law where the evidence and arguments were sufficient. This was not a case requiring a trial to investigate a realistic factual prospect.
3. Particular lien. The court identified five principles: a lien operates only on a physical chattel; work must be done on the detained chattel, rather than with it or in relation to it; the work must improve or add value to that chattel; any improvement must be inherent in the chattel, although it need not be physical; and an inseverable hybrid claim covering lien-generating and non-lien-generating work creates no lien.
4. The defendant’s research, exhibition design, figures, props and surrounding environment were work in respect of the motorcycles, not work on them. The figures remained separate objects, even if designed to sit on the motorcycles. No restoration or repair of the motorcycles was alleged or evidenced.
5. The asserted increase in value concerned a temporary touring exhibition, not the motorcycles themselves. Any increased value depended on separate materials and was not inherent in the motorcycles. The contractual restrictions on location, operation, relocation, recreation and assignment further weakened the asserted value theory.
6. The unpaid invoice was a design-stage invoice which could not be apportioned between potentially lien-generating and non-lien-generating work. It therefore could not support a particular lien.