Restitution
front page

What's new?

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

By the miracle of New Law Online (http://www.newlawonline.com/), on which sad to say one needs an account, I hoped to see a transcript, but it is not there yet. I am told that there that "the city of Gotha and the Federal Republic of Germany claimed the return of the painting in conversion against Cobert." But it must be said that the case is primarily concerned with a very interesting conflicts point about whose limitation period applies.

Under the Torts (Interference with Goods Act) 1977, s. 3, as under prior statutes dating from 1854, a court exercising common law jurisdiction can order specific delivery in a claim for conversion, trespass to chattels, and what used to be called detinue. So just because they asked for (and got) their painting back does not mean that the claim was a vindicatio as such. It is a good old tort of interference with a possessory right, followed by the exercise of a very sensibly created discretionary jurisdiction which permits defendants to be ordered to give things back (as they could not by common law courts before 1854). It may look like a vindicatio, but whether it is one or not depends on what we mean by that. My understanding of the traditional usage is that it depends not on the order ultimately made but on the *form* of the claim. If what we mean by vindication is a claim of the form, "that is mine (& o court please say so)" then this painting claim is not a vindicatio, nor does the common law even as amended by statute have one.

Lionel