whether at the time of the alleged wrongful conduct by Ms Ecclestone, Elite and Ansol had possession and/or an immediate right to possession of the car;
whether Ms Ecclestone had a defence to the claims in conversion of either Elite or Ansol based on Ms Ecclestone or Mr Khyami having a better right to the car than Elite or Ansol, or, on the basis that Elite's possession was obtained after it was said to have conspired with bailiffs to seize the car from H.R.
the amount of any losses (if any) caused to Elite or Ansol as a result of Ms Ecclestone's conversion and/or the obtaining of the injunction;
whether Ansol was entitled to delivery-up of the car.
Ansol submitted that it had no knowledge of the dispute between Ms Ecclestone, Mr Khyami and Elite concerning the car until shortly after it had taken delivery of the car.
Held: application by Ms Ecclestone against Elite and Ansol for conversion dismissed.
Elite on sold the car to Ansol but was entitled to retain possession until the car was transferred to Ansol on 16th April 2013.
Ansol was, after purchasing the car on 11th April 2013, the owner of the car, and obtained possession of it on 16th April 2013.
In the case of Ansol an inquiry under the cross undertaking in damages was ordered because Ansol was not involved with Elite in wrongful dealings with the bailiff.
as a result of the sale on to Ansol, and the agreement between Ansol and Elite that the sale should stand, there was no question that Elite would have lost either the car or the value of the car, so refusing an inquiry into the cross undertaking in damages would not have involved any disproportionate punishment of Elite;