Conversion of a motor vehicle — Limitation Act 1950, s 5 — Property Law Act 2007, ss 48, 50 — Personal Property Securities Act 1999. The plaintiff claimed damages for the alleged wrongful conversion of a motor vehicle he purchased. The first defendant had previously owned the motor vehicle and arranged for her agent, the second defendant, to repossess the vehicle. The possession and ownership history of the classic car in dispute is lengthy and complicated. In brief, the plaintiff was a bona fide purchaser of the car and so too was the man he purchased the car from. The plaintiff sold the vehicle to another purchaser who was a bona fide purchaser for value (although after repossession, the purchaser assigned all rights back to the plaintiff). The first defendant alleged that her estranged husband had wrongly sold the car and that she was the rightful owner, as vested to her by order of the Family Court in 2003. Further, in 2018 the vehicle was repossessed again, this time by a company that held a registered security interest in the vehicle. It is not known what happened to the vehicle after that. The plaintiff claimed alleged wrongful conversion, while the first defendant claimed that s 5(1) of the Limitation Act provides that where a cause of action for conversion has occurred, and then a further conversion takes place, then no action can be brought in respect of that further conversion after six years from the original conversion. The first defendant argued the sale of the car in 2006 constituted conversion and that this case fell outside the six year period. However, the first defendant field for bankruptcy in 2006 which the Judge found extinguished her rights to the vehicle. The Judge held that the first defendant was liable to the plaintiff for converting the motor vehicle by refusing to return it to him. However, the case was adjourned to allow the plaintiff to take the necessary steps under the Personal Property Securities Act 1999 in respect of any charge holders. No findings of liability were found against the second defendant. Judgment Date: 20 July 2018.