The claimant had been convicted and served his time for possession of a large collection of obsolete or antique firearms. He now sought their return. The police replied that he was in any event out of time.
Held: ‘Section 3(2) of the 1980 Act is, at least in the context of that Act, a somewhat unusual provision. Rather than simply providing a defendant with a defence to a claim (see and compare for example, the effect of sections 2 and 5 of the 1980 Act), section 3(2) goes further: where goods have been converted, and the period of limitation has expired, the owner’s title to the goods is removed. In this way, section 3(2) of the 1980 Act has an effect going beyond the law of tort, and beyond affecting only the parties to a claim for conversion.’ He was therefore no longer the owner so as to assert a claim under the 1897 Act.
Mr Justice Swift
[2021] EWHC 34 (Admin), [2021] 2 WLR 648, [2021] QB 773
Bailii
Firearms Act 1968 21(1), Police (Property) Act 1897 1(1), Limitation Act 1980 3
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Schwarzschild v Harrods Ltd QBD 19-Mar-2008
The Claimant alleged against Harrods Limited the tort of conversion in accordance with s.2(2) of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977. The claim relates to certain personal items (principally jewellery) which she inherited and which for many . .
Cited – Sullivan v Earl of Caithness QBD 1976
The defendant who lived in Oxfordshire stored his guns at his mother’s property in Surrey because it was more secure. The magistrates held that he was not in possession of the guns in Oxfordshire. The prosecutor appealed.
Held: The appeal . .
Cited – Regina v North CACD 9-Mar-2001
The present appeal turns on the meaning and scope of the concept ‘has in his possession’ in the subsection.
Held: The court applied the conclusion stated in Sullivan, stating that the notion of what amounted to possession ought to be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Limitation
Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.657315
