Possession and Damages for Tortious Interferences with Chattels

The common law has long maintained that, where a defendant has tortiously interfered with a chattel that was in the claimant’s possession at the time of the wrong, the claimant is, in general, to be presumed to be the ‘absolute and complete owner’ of the chattel. It is argued in this article that the rule lacks a satisfactory justificatory basis: the justification that has been endorsed by the courts is fatally flawed, and the main alternative justifications that have been advanced in the academic literature are also unsatisfactory. If an adequate foundation cannot be found, the rule should be abolished and, if it were to be abolished, there are, it is suggested, good reasons to introduce a similar, but importantly different, rule of presumption.