The cases stated here may no longer be relevant but they may provide the reader with a different perspective on their situation, on the facts
Nemo Dat – can title to stolen property be acquired? Seemingly not as Nemo dat quod non habet – ‘no one can give what they do not have’; someone who steals gains possession of the taken item, not title. In turn, they can pass possession, not title. The title rests with the original owner, the person from whom the property was taken.
Costello vs Derbyshire Police 2021 – (summary) If the property believed to be stolen, cannot be identified, who can be approached as a victim, who has a better claim to title than the person (suspect) found in possession of it?
Derbyshire Constabulary’s legal department was concerned about the situation and set about trying to promote “Lord’s Law”. In brief, it was consdiered a vehicle purchaser should be required to undertake further due diligence pre-purchase of a vehicle, thereby evidencing their ‘innocent purchaser’ status. A single meeting on the subject at Derbyshire QH, attended by the writer, did not see the suggestion progress. A 2025 FoIA request for information about the intentions revealed (unsurprisingly), ‘no information held’.
Further matters about vehicle title:
Gough and Another v The Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police: CA 2 Mar 2004 – a dispute about ‘suspected’ stolen vehicle parts.
Webb vs. THE CHIEF CONSTABLE OF MERSEYSIDE 1999. the arguments again were related to …’in the absence of any evidence that anybody else is the true owner, once the police right of retention comes to an end, the person from whom they were compulsorily taken is entitled to possession‘.
Lewis & Averay (1971) – Can title to property obtained by fraud be acquired?
Moorgate Mercantile Co Ltd v Twitchings – effectivley, if a finance cmpany fails to regsiter their interest with a MARS member,
Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson – [2003] UKHL 62. English contract law case decided in the House of Lords, on the subject of mistaken identity as a basis for rescission of a contract. The case has been the subject of much criticism in failing to effectively clarify the area of mistake to identity (Wikipedia)
‘Section 66 PACE‘ – Leaving property with an innocent purchaser:
“Property must not be retained by the police except in the circumstances outlined in paragraph 2.1. Officers must make use of the Section 66 PACE certificate and where possible leave, property with its possessor. Officers, who are uncertain if the property should be left with its possessor, should use the guidance notes in Appendix C attached or if further information is required, contact the Area D/I or APO before seizing the property.” 2005 Warwickshire police
Further information can be found here.
Website Disclaimer
The information provided on this website is for general informational and research purposes only. While we strive to ensure that all content is accurate, up to date, and relevant, laws and regulations are constantly evolving. As such, the information presented may not reflect the most current legal standards or interpretations.
Nothing on this website should be construed as legal advice or a substitute for professional legal counsel. If you require legal assistance or advice specific to your circumstances, you should consult a qualified lawyer.
We accept no responsibility or liability for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in the content, nor for any reliance placed upon the information provided. The use of this website and its content is entirely at your own risk.
By continuing to use this website, you acknowledge and agree to these terms.