HL Deb 03 February 1977 vol 379 cc966-73

3.33 p.m.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Commitee on this Bill.

Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The Lord ABERDARE in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 [Extinction of title on satisfaction of claim for damages]:

The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 1: Page 3, line 33, after ("compensated") insert ("(a)").

The noble and learned Lord said: It may be helpful if I were to inform the Committee that the Amendments which stand in my name are, with one exception, brought forward in order to meet points most helpfully brought to my notice by The Law Society Law Reform Committee, which has obviously examined this Bill in great detail and has put forward helpful suggestions. It may not escape your Lordships' notice that it is a highly technical Bill and that the Amendments are highly technical. If any noble Lord fails to grasp the full meaning and significance of any particular Amendment he will not be alone in this respect, if I may say so, speaking for myself.

Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, which it may be convenient to take together, relate to contributory negligence. The clause as printed makes it plain that in an action for wrongful interference with goods payment of the assessed damages extinguishes the plaintiff's title to the goods. It leaves room for doubt, however, whether the same rule applies where the plaintiff in an action based on negligent interference has been guilty of contributory negligence, and his damages are to that extent reduced. The Amendments resolve this doubt, and his title to the goods is still extinguished. I beg to move.

Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE

It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I said this. As the noble and learned Lord has said, this is a very highly technical Bill indeed. The noble and learned Lord has been good enough to send me this morning the Government brief on these Amendments. I doubt if I could have understood their purport unaided. Broadly speaking, I think we can say that we should pass them because the Bill has been considered originally by the Law Reform Committee and most of these Amendments are recommended by the Law Society. Speaking personally, I can see no valid objection to them, and I shall not say anything more during the Committee stage unless the noble and learned Lord provokes me.

Lord JANNER

May I take this opportunity to say something which is not frequently enough said in the course of our debates? I should like to put on the record what the Law Society feels about this Bill and thank the Government for having accepted the views that they have put before my noble and learned friend. They say: We are content with the way our comments on the drafting of the Bill have been dealt with Most of the Government Amendments which have been taken for Committee stage are to meet points that we raised". I think I ought to express the gratitude of my colleagues in the solicitors' profession and myself for the manner in which my noble and learned friend has dealt with these recommendations.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. Lord Hailsham, for his general blessing for the Amendments, which I have considered and which, I think, add to the value and correctness of the Bill. I again express my gratitude to the Law Reform Committee of the Law Society for the enormous help they have given in this regard—as they do frequently in other legislation.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 3, line 33, at end insert (", or (b) for the whole of his interest in the goods subject to a reduction for contributory negligence.")

The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment formally.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 3:

Page 4, line 12, at end insert— ("(5) This section has effect subject to any agreement varying the respective rights of the parties to the agreement, and where the claim is made in court proceedings has effect subject to any order of the court.")

The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment adds an additional subsection to Clause 5, and renders the rule about extinction of title to goods on satisfaction of a judgment or settlement inapplicable if the parties concerned have agreed to the contrary effect, or if the court otherwise orders. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6 [Allowance for improvement of the goods]:

3.38 p.m.

The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendments Nos. 4 to 7 en bloc:

Page 4, line 13, at beginning insert ("If")

Page 4,line 14, leave out from ("who") to ("has") in line 15.

Page 4,line 15, leave out ("them") and insert ("the goods, it is shown that the improver acted in the mistaken but honest belief that he had a good title to them")

Page 4,line 19, leave out from beginning to ("or") in line 29 and insert— ("(2) If, in proceedings for wrongful interference against a person ("the purchaser") who has purported to purchase the goods—

  1. (a) from the improver, or
  2. (b) where after such a purported sale the goods passed by a further purported sale on one or more occasions, on any such occasion,
it is shown that the purchaser acted in good faith an allowance shall be made on the principle set out in subsection (1). For example, where a person in good faith buys a stolen car from the improver and issued in conversion by the true owner the damages may be reduced to reflect the improvement, but if the person who bought the stolen car from the improver sues the improver for failure of consideration, and the improver acted in good faith, subsection (3) below will ordinarily make a comparable reduction in the damages he recovers from the improver. (3) If in a case within subsection (2) the person purporting to sell the goods acted in good faith, then in proceedings by the purchaser for recovery of the purchase price because of failure of consideration.").

The noble and learned Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I should like to move Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 en bloc. They are inter-related. The third Amendment, Amendment No. 6, confers a right on a defendant in proceedings for wrongful interference to an allowance to be set against the damages he must pay. The allowance is to reflect any improvement made to the goods since the original conversion. An obvious example would be a stolen car which has been fitted with a new engine. The clause is intended to give this right to an allowance to persons who have acted bona fide.

Your Lordships will know that the tort of conversion does not necessarily require any conscious element of wrong-doing. The Law Society have, however, drawn my attention to the fact that the clause would work hardship on a subsequent purchaser of the goods if he were the defendant in the proceedings brought by the true owner. As printed, the clause would require him to show his own good faith and that of every intermediate possessor of the goods since they had been improved.

Under the Amendment the subsequent purchaser has to show nobody's good faith other than his own, and your Lordships may welcome the example which is given at the top of page 2 of the Marshalled List, which should help to show what the clause is doing. There have been two other examples in this Bill of attempts to illuminate the text by examples. This is a useful procedure which may be increasingly used, especially in technical legislation of this kind. I beg to move.

The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES

With the permission of the Committee, I will put Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 en bloc.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7 [Double liability]:

3.41 p.m.

The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 8: Page 5, line 2, leave out ("remedies") and insert ("relief").

The noble and learned Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 9:

Page 5, line 16, at end insert ("and becomes liable to reimburse the converter of the goods").

The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment completes the example in subsection (4) by explaining the legal consequences of the facts therein given. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8 agreed to.

Clause 9 [Concurrent actions]:

The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 10: Page 5, line 41, leave out from ("where") to end of line 42 and insert ("goods are the subject of two or more claims for wrongful interference (whether or not the claims are founded on the same wrongful act, and whether or not any of the claims relates also to other goods)").

The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment amplifies Clause 9(1) so as to make it clear that the clause contemplates not merely two or more claims arising out of a single occurrence or event, but equally two or more claims arising out of a series of occurrences or events but all relating to the same property. Thus the provision for joining together concurrent proceedings for wrongful interference will apply whether the proceedings arise out of concurrent interests in goods (owner and hirer, for example) or out of successive conversions (as in a chain of purported sales). I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 10 (Limitation of actions]:

On Question, Whether Clause 10 shall stand part of the Bill?

The LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I have an unusual Amendment, to leave out a clause in my own Bill. This is as the result of further thought being applied to the provisions of the Bill. It was originally included in the Bill as part of the attempted unification of the tort of wrongful interference then contemplated but which, unhappily, as I said on Second Reading, had to be abandoned. With that abandonment Clause 10 no longer serves any useful purpose. I thought it was appropriate—to use a non-legal expression—that I should at once "come clean" and remove it from the Bill.

Clause 10 negatived.

Clauses 11 and 12 agreed to.

Clause 13 [Bailee's power of sale]:

The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 11: Page 8, line 12, after ("(b)") insert ("where subsection (3)(a) applies").

The noble and learned Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendments Nos. 12 and 13:

Page 8, line 19, at beginning insert ("(a)")

Page 8,line 20, at end insert ("and (b) references to what is payable, paid or due to the bailee in respect of the goods include references to what would be payable by the bailor to the bailee as a condition of delivery of the goods at the relevant time.")

The noble and learned Lord said: These Amendments enlarge the provisions about deductions that can be made from the proceeds of sale of uncollected goods. The Law Society pointed out in their memorandum on the Bill that the present provisions about deductions are drawn too narrowly. They particularly had in mind cases where the bailee has a general, as opposed to a particular, lien on the goods in question. These Amendments remedy the omission. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 14 agreed to.

Clause 15 [Interpretation]:

The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 14:

Page 9, line 23, after ("under") insert ("that or").

The noble and learned Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment which is needed for Northern Ireland. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

Schedule 1 [Uncollected goods]:

The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 15:

Page 10, leave out lines 19 and 20 and insert— ("(b) the amount, if any, which is payable by the bailor to the bailee in respect of the goods and which became due before the giving of the notice.")

The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment meets another point taken by the Law Society. They said: We think the bailee may be placed in difficulties by paragraph 7 of the Schedule as at present worded. It may well be that the bailor failed to pay what is due without giving any reason. They then suggested an amendment very substantially along the lines of that now before the Committee. I beg to move.

Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE

I said I would not say anything more unless the noble and learned Lord provoked me. He has. He has read out the Government brief on Amendment No. 16 when he was moving Amendment No. 15.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

I apologise for that. That shows the danger of relying on a brief without a copy of the list of Amendments. Amendment No. 15 is consequential. At any rate, the Committee will now anticipate what I was going to say on Amendment No. 16 and no doubt will be no less the wiser for it, either.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 16:

Page 11, leave out lines 34 to 40 and insert— ("7—(1) The bailee shall not give a notice under section 13(3), or exercise his right to sell the goods pursuant to such a notice, at a time when he has notice that, because of a dispute concerning the goods, the bailor is questioning or refusing to pay all or any part of what the bailee claims to be due to him in respect of the goods.").

The noble and learned Lord said: As I said earlier, this Amendment meets a point of great importance put by the Law Society which I have already explained. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining Schedules agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.