Limitation of Actions Consultation - Law Commission

If consultees do not agree, we ask them what alternative they would prefer.
13.64 We further ask consultees, who agree with our provisional views in the
previous paragraph, whether they consider that the desired result can be
achieved by a provision on deliberate concealment analogous to the
present section 32(1), (3) and (4) of the 1980 Act or whether, on the
contrary, they consider that special rules on long-stops are necessary to
deal with claims for conversions constituting, or related to, theft.
(3) The Effect of the Expiry of the Limitation Period
13.65 Under the present law once the limitation period for a conversion has expired, the
plaintiff’s title to the property is extinguished. 94
We believe that, in principle, this
should continue, since it would be anomalous if a plaintiff was unable, through
limitation, to bring an action in conversion against any defendant, yet was still
regarded as the owner of the goods. We have seen that, under the current law, even
where a limitation period is running against several defendants, it will expire at the
same time in respect of all those defendants, and that is the time when the
plaintiff’s title is extinguished. 95
The position under the regime which we have
provisionally recommended is slightly more complicated because the operation of
discoverability will mean that there may be a different limitation period in respect
of actions against different defendants. 96
There will be no one date as at which one
may say with certainty that the plaintiff’s claim against all potential defendants has
been statute-barred.
13.66 This can be illustrated by an example. Suppose D1 steals goods from P in 2000,
and sells them on to bona fide purchaser D2 in 2005, who sells them on to D3,
also a bona fide purchaser, in 2010. P acquires knowledge in relation to D2 in
2006. So the limitation period for an action in conversion by P against D2 will end
in 2009. But under our scheme P will get a fresh three-year limitation period in
relation to D3 from whenever he acquires the relevant knowledge in relation to
D3. For example, P could acquire the knowledge about D3 in 2010, soon after D3
has bought the goods, so that the limitation period for an action by P against D3
ends in 2013. The long-stop period for D2 and D3, and for any successive bona
fide purchasers, expires in 2015, and one could argue that this should be the time
when the owner’s title to the goods is extinguished. But if D3 sold the goods in
2011 to D4, who was well aware that they were stolen, there would be no longstop
period in respect of a claim against D4. So it is not possible to stipulate, for
the extinguishment of P’s title, the date when actions against all defendants, actual
or potential, become time-barred as a matter of certainty.
13.67 One can strongly argue that the owner’s title should be extinguished once time has
run against one defendant and the limitation period in respect of that defendant
has expired while the goods are still in his or her possession. This would avoid a
94 See s 3(2) of the 1980 Act, and para 3.109 above.
95 That is, where the goods are stolen from the plaintiff, 6 years from the date of the first bona
fide purchase, and, where the goods have been “honestly converted” from the plaintiff, 6
years from the date of the original conversion: see para 3.110 - 3.115 above.
96 See Example, para 13.55 above.
346