Limitation of Actions Consultation - Law Commission

6 ACTIONS FOR CONVERSION
Are modifications to the core regime needed for conversion generally?
15.41 We provisionally propose that for actions to recover converted property - and,
possibly, for all actions for conversion - 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. (Paragraph 13.49).
15.42 We ask consultees whether they agree with our provisional view that, at least in
respect of actions for conversions that are not thefts or theft-related, the long-stop
under our core regime should run from the date of the first conversion. (Paragraph
13.50).
Are further modifications to the core regime needed for conversions
constituting, or related to, theft?
15.43 We ask consultees whether they favour the retention of the theft exception,
whereby conversions constituting, or related to, theft (other than a claim against a
bona fide purchaser) are not subject to a limitation period; or whether, on the
contrary, they agree with our provisional view that the initial limitation period
under the core regime (that is, three years from the date of discoverability) should
apply to conversions constituting, or related to, theft. If consultees support the
retention of the theft exception we ask them to explain why. (Paragraph 13.57).
15.44 We ask consultees whether they agree with our provisional views that where goods
have been stolen:-
(a) The long-stop period should apply in relation to actions for conversion
against bona fide purchasers of the goods, and that the long-stop period
should commence on the date of the purchase or, where there has been
more than one purchase, on the date of the first bona fide purchase.
(b) The long-stop period should be disapplied in relation to actions for
conversion against anyone other than bona fide purchasers of the goods.
If consultees do not agree, we ask them what alternative they would prefer.
15.45 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. (Paragraphs 13.63 - 13.64).
The effect of the expiry of the limitation period
15.46 Our provisional view is that where goods have been converted (whether there has
been a theft or not) the plaintiff’s title should become extinguished when both the
following conditions are satisfied: (i) the limitation period (whether the initial
period or the long-stop) has expired in relation to the plaintiff’s claim in
conversion against a defendant; and (ii) at the time when that limitation period
409