Limitation of Actions Consultation - Law Commission

(2) To What Extent should the Core Regime Apply?
(a) Are modifications to the core regime needed for conversion generally?
13.48 Applying our core regime, the initial limitation period would be three years from
the date of discoverability of the conversion (with discoverability defined to refer to
knowledge of the conversion, of the identity of the defendant, and that the
conversion is significant) with a long-stop of 10 years which would run from the
date of the conversion in issue. It is arguable that two modifications to this core
regime need to be made for all conversion actions.
13.49 The first possible modification relates to the date of discoverability. Given the
scope for goods to be moved (including from jurisdiction to jurisdiction) and
hidden, we think it strongly arguable that the location of the goods should be
treated as knowledge which a plaintiff (who wishes to recover converted property)
should have before the initial limitation period starts running. Indeed the
provisions on limitation contained in both the EU Directive and the UNIDROIT
convention specify knowledge of the identity of the possessor of a stolen object and
of its location. 74
While knowledge of the identity of the defendant is required under
our proposed definition of the date of discoverability, knowledge of the location is
not required for the limitation period to start running. We therefore
provisionally propose that for actions to recover converted property - and,
possibly, for all actions for conversion 75
- the definition of discoverability
should require knowledge of the location of the property in addition to the
other three elements (knowledge of the facts constituting the cause of
action, the identity of the defendant and the significance of the cause of
action) to start time running. We ask consultees for their views on this
issue.
13.50 The second possible modification relates to the long-stop. We provisionally believe
that the 10 year long-stop should run from the date of the first conversion. If the
individuals within that State) the right to take action against the possessor of a cultural
object which has been unlawfully removed from the territory of that Member State within
One year after the Member State became aware of the location of the Cultural Object
and of the identity of its possessor or holder; or ... after the expiry of the special
limitation period. (Para 6(6) of the Return of Cultural Objects Regulations 1994
(“RCOR 1994”)).
Where the objects are part of a public collection or ecclesiastical goods subject to special
protection arrangements under the national law of the Member State, the special limitation
period is 75 years commencing with the date on which the object was unlawfully removed
from the territory of the requesting Member State. Otherwise the special, or long-stop,
limitation period is 30 years (RCOR 1994, para 6(7)(8)). These limitation periods take
precedence over any other rules on limitation (see para 6(9) of RCOR 1994). The Directive
is not designed to deal only with stolen property - in many cases it may be the owner of the
cultural property in question, rather than a thief, who is responsible for its illegal export
from the territory of a Member State.
74 See Directive 93/7, Article 7, and UNIDROIT Convention on the International Return of
Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects, 1995, Article 3(3).
75 Although, if viewed in isolation, there is no good reason why a claim for damages (or other
monetary remedy) for conversion should require knowledge of the goods’ location, it may
be practically inconvenient to have different starting dates for different remedies for the
same conversion.
340