Myck Djurberg v Thames Properties (Hampton) Limited & Ors

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal from Mellor J's order striking out the claimant's action, limited to the single ground on which permission to appeal had been granted. The appeal concerned whether a purported maritime or contractual lien for unpaid mooring fees could give the claimant sufficient possessory rights to sustain tort claims in conversion and trespass to goods after a third party moved the vessel. The court held that, as a matter of principle, a lien that confers a right to retain possession can, if established, give title to sue in conversion; but it was not established on the pleadings and evidence before the judge. The judge therefore erred in striking out the whole claim without giving the unrepresented claimant an opportunity to amend his pleadings and without observing procedural safeguards required by the Civil Procedure Rules. The appeal was allowed so that the claimant may plead and, if appropriate, evidence the contractual basis for any lien and the factual matrix of the alleged unpaid fees and possession.

Background and parties. The appellant, a private individual trading as Hampton Riviera, claimed that he had licensed a houseboat to moor at a location adjacent to St Albans Garden Riverside and was entitled to a maritime or contractual lien for unpaid mooring fees. The first respondent owned two parcels formerly owned by the appellant; the second and third respondents were directors of that company. The houseboat (HRB1) was moved without the appellant's consent and he sued for tortious interference with goods (conversion and trespass to goods).

Procedural posture. The claimant issued proceedings and applied for an interim injunction. Mellor J refused the injunction and struck out the whole action on 24 May 2023 for failure to disclose a cause of action ([2023] EWHC 1625 (Ch)). Nugee LJ subsequently granted permission to appeal on one narrow ground: whether there was an arguable claim that the defendants had committed the tort of interference with goods if the claimant could show (i) a licence creating a lien (clause 9.3 of the standard licence), (ii) unpaid fees, and (iii) that he had asserted the lien.

Issues framed by the Court of Appeal.

• Whether English law recognises a maritime lien or other lien for unpaid mooring charges sufficient to found conversion or trespass to goods.
• Whether the pleadings and evidence disclosed a contractual basis (the alleged standard berthing licence) and sufficient factual detail about the parties, date and terms of the contract, unpaid fees and possession.
• Whether the judge properly exercised his case management powers and complied with the Civil Procedure Rules when he struck out the claim, including the particular duty to a litigant in person and the requirements for an application notice or summary judgment procedure.
• Whether the claimant's bankruptcy affected his ability to pursue the monetary claim or the lien.

Court's reasoning and result. The court analysed the law of liens, explaining that a lien is a possessory right and, normally, is destroyed if the goods are removed; the holder of a lien who is in possession can sue in conversion. The court accepted that maritime lien is a narrower category and that existing authorities and Halsbury's do not identify unpaid mooring charges as giving rise to a maritime lien. However, a contractual lien may exist. The appellant had not pleaded or evidenced the contractual building blocks (date, parties, relevant clauses) but permission to appeal was limited to the arguable issue of whether, if those elements were later established, he could maintain conversion/trespass claims. The judge was criticised for failing to follow CPR requirements, particularly when dealing with a litigant in person, and for disposing of the whole claim without allowing amendment or following formal application procedure. The court allowed the appeal on the sole ground given by Nugee LJ, subject to the points concerning bankruptcy and the need for amendment and possible proper summary judgment applications by the respondents.

Appeal allowed. The Court of Appeal held that the strike-out was wrongly made in relation to the sole ground for which permission to appeal was given. The court explained that, while English law does not clearly recognise a maritime lien for unpaid mooring charges, a contractual lien (if properly pleaded and evidenced) can confer possessory rights enabling an action in conversion or trespass to goods; the trial judge erred in striking out the entire claim without allowing the unrepresented claimant to amend and without complying with Civil Procedure Rules.

The proceedings came from the High Court, Chancery Division, Mellor J ([2023] EWHC 1625 (Ch)), where the claimant's interim injunction was refused and the action was struck out on 24 May 2023. Nugee LJ granted permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal on a single ground; the Court of Appeal ([2024] EWCA Civ 549) allowed the appeal on that limited ground on 21 May 2024.