Stolen Property in the Conflict of Laws
![handle is hein.journals/cblrt1 and id is 75 raw text is:
CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS
STOLEN PROPERTY IN THE CONFLICT OF LAWS
To those schooled in the common law tradition it is a basic principle of
the law of personal property, expressed in the maxim Nemo Dat Quod Non
Habet, that a purchaser of goods acquires no better title to them than that
of his vendor. Although there are a number of exceptions it has been widely
accepted that in the clearest imaginable case where such goods are stolen
from their original owner neither a purchaser from the thief nor any suc-
cessor in title can resist an action for their recovery brought by the original
owner or another party claiming through him.'
The recent decision of Slade J., on a preliminary point of law, in
Winkworth v Christie, Manson & Woods Ltd, [1980] 1 All E.R. 1121, is a
useful reminder that this principle is not universally accepted and in ap-
propriate circumstances will not necessarily be applied by the English
courts.
The facts as agreed by the parties to the action were that the plaintiff,
Winkworth, domiciled and ordinarily resident in England, was the original
owner of a large number of Japanese works of art. These were stolen in
England from his lawful possession, taken to Italy, and subsequently sold
there to the second defendant, Dr Paolo Dal Pozzo D'Annone, an Italian
national and resident. The second defendant later delivered the art works
(the goods) to the first defendants in England for auction by Christie's
on his behalf.2 After some of the goods had been sold at auction the plain-
tiff became aware that they were his former property and he sought and
was given undertakings by Christie's that they would part with neither the
proceeds of sale nor the balance of the goods pending resolution of the
evident dispute as to title between the plaintiff and the second defendant.
The plaintiff thereupon issued proceedings against the defendants seeking:
1. a declaration that the goods had at all material times been the property
of the plaintiff;
2. an injunction restraining Christie's from accounting to Dr Annone for
the proceeds of completed sales, and from selling or parting with pos-
session of the balance of the goods in their possession;
3. an injunction restraining Dr Annone from receiving in any way any part
of the proceeds of sale, and from selling or parting with possession of
any of the goods in his possession;
4. an order for the return of the goods in the defendants' possession or
control, or their value; and
e.g. Rowland v Divall [1923] 2 K.B. 500; Stags General Guarantee Co. v British
Wagon Co. [1934] 2 K.B. 305; Elwin v O'Regan and Maxwell [1971] N.Z.L.R.
1124.
It is not clear how much time elapsed between the theft and the eventual return
of the goods to the jurisdiction, a factor which could prove material in some
circumstances: see e.g. Limitation Act 1955, s.5. The action would seem to be one
of the last common law suits in detinue and conversion before the Torts (Inter-
ference with Goods) Act 1977 came into force in England.
71](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/cblrt1&div=10&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Stolen Property in the Conflict of Laws
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most