Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 16:07

From: Martin Hogg

Subject: Interference with property

Not that this would have helped the disgruntled English proprietor, but had these facts occurred in Scotland I think an action of 'spuilzie' (pronounced 'spool-ee', a wonderful Scots word) would have been available to the dispossessed owner of the ship. This action is part of property law, and so any solution to the problem  would not lie in delict/tort. By virtue of the law of spuilzie, a lawful possessor of moveable property who is vitiously dispossessed of his possession may maintain the action and so claim (1) the immediate return of the property and (2) so-called 'violent profits' (i.e. punitive damages) for the period of wrongful dispossession. The crucial question might be does 'detaining' the boat amount to 'dispossession'. I think it arguably would in Scotland  - it certainly would under the South African law (where the relevant action is the 'mandement van spolie') where dispossession can be constituted by any action which prevents the lawful possessor from dealing with the property.

As I say, this is only of marginal interest for English lawyers, but, if the argument in favour of spuilzie is correct, perhaps the decision in Club Cruise Entertainment highlights the need for a similar remedy in English Law? 

Martin Hogg
Edinburgh Law School

--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>