Conversion involves interfering with another's property rights in a way that is inconsistent with those rights. There are three elements required for conversion: 1) the defendant's conduct must be inconsistent with the rights of the owner or possessor, 2) the conduct must be deliberate, and 3) the conduct must constitute an extensive encroachment on the owner's rights such that they are excluded from use and possession of the goods. Examples of conversion include intentionally taking possession of another's property without justification or abusing possession of lawfully held goods. Mere unintentional or accidental interference is typically not enough to establish conversion.

1. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Conversion can be defined as dealing with goods in a manner inconsistent with the rights of the
true owner or person entitled to possession. It is the interference with the property of another, together
with the intention exercising dominion or control over the goods. There must be an intention on part of
the defendant in doing so to deny the owner’s right. There also must be a positive wrongful act on part
of the defendant.
The objective of this scope of tort is to enable the plaintiff to have dominion and control over
his goods. However,the tort does not protect the plaintiff’s interest in their physical condition. The act
of merely moving goods does not give rise to a conversion and an action may only lie in the tort of
trespass to goods.
Although possession usually indicates control over the goods, this is not necessarily so. Mere
unauthorised or detention is not an act of conversion. Demand and refusal are required for the tort to
arise. Conversion only arises when the detention of the goods is adverse to the owner, excluding him
from the goods, accompanied by an intention to keep the goods. Although precise definition is
impossible, the basic features of the tort are threefold.
First, the defendant’s conduct must be inconsistent with the rights of the owner or another who
is entitled to possession. Secondly, the conduct is deliberate and not accidentally done. Thirdly, the
conduct constitutes an extensive encroachment on the rights of the owner such that he is excluded from
use and possession of the goods. This is to be contrasted with the lesser acts of interference which could
give rise to trespass or negligence if damage ensues,but not conversion. There are a few elements that
must be fulfilled in order to establish or give rise for conversion.
The first element is the mental state of the defendant. The defendant’s act must be voluntary
and therefore done deliberately and intentionally. Mere unauthorised retention of goods need not
necessarily amount to a conversion. Detention must be adverse to the owner, an encroachment on his
rights so as to exclude him from the use and possession of the goods. It does not matter that the person
who has dealt voluntarily with the goods (and so usurped the owner or the possessor’s right) did not
know, or could not reasonably have known, of the other party’s interest in the goods. It is absolute when
it comes to on to refraining from dealing with another’s goods.
In the case of Ashby v Tolhurst, the plaintiff left his car at the defendant’s car park. When he
came back to collect his car, the attendant told the plaintiff that someone who had claimed to be the
plaintiff’s friend had driven the carout of the area.There wasalso a disclaimer of liability atthe parking
lot. The court held that the defendant not liable in conversion as there was no intentional act on their
part. Here, the defendant had negligently allowed the car to be stolen through an omission.
However,any person that is innocent who obtains possession of goods of another who in turn
has been fraudulently deprived of them, and subsequently disposes them, whether for his own benefit
or otherwise, is guilty for conversion. This principle is derived from Hollins v Fowler where the plaintiff
owned some bundles of cotton. T tricked the plaintiff and obtained possession of some bundles of
cotton. The defendant, a cotton broker bought some cotton from T and sold them to a third party. It was
held that the defendant was liable in conversion as he had the intention to deal with the bundles of
cotton. The principle arises is that the defendant himself was directly involved in the business
negotiation, subsequently disposes the goods to a third party, so the defendant is liable in the case. But,
if a person is directly involved in the transaction of the goods, he would not be said to have commit any
conversion. The plaintiff cannot take action against the purchaser as he was a bona fide (in good faith)
purchaser.
The second element is the interference or inconsistent dealing. There are two ways of act that
is inconsistent with the owner’s rights which are taking possession and abusing possession. Taking

2. possession is taking possession of another’s property without lawful justification, this gives rise to two
torts; trespass to goods and conversion. In Fouldes v Willoughby, the plaintiff boarded the defendant’s
ferry and offered to pay extra in order to bring along two horses onto the ferry. The defendant refused
and it was ignored by the plaintiff. The defendant later rode the horses to a hotel and left them at the
hotel’s stable. The plaintiff upon returning from his journey was asked to pay for leaving of the horses
at the stable. So, the plaintiff claimed for conversion as against the defendant. It was held that only
trespass to goods exist, but no conversion as the defendant only move the horses.
Further, involuntary reception of goods. If a person receives goods involuntarily when in fact
the goods belong to a third party who does not consent to the handling of the goods, the party who
receives them may be liable in conversion. In JH Rayner (Mincing Lane) Ltd v Teck Hock & Co (Pte)
Ltd & Ors, it was held that as a general rule a person who is not the owner of the goods conveys the
goods to another commits conversion and the person to whom the goods are conveyed obtains no better
title to them and may also be liable in conversion.
In a situation where the defendant receives the goods without having requested for the goods,
as a generalrule, he do not commit conversion by virtue of that involuntary reception. He also need not
do more than what would be reasonably necessary for the safekeeping of the goods. In the case of
Lathbrigde v Phillips, the defendant was not liable as he does not have any intention of possession
towardsthe painting left by the third party. When the painting wasdamaged,the plaintiff cannot claimed
for conversion as the defendant is not liable.
Abusing possession is when the defendant initially has lawful possession of the goods but he
subsequently does an act that constitutes a conversion. Abuse of possession can take in many forms.
The Jag Shakti, the plaintiff was a salt importer who had two bills of lading. The defendant was
the owner of a ship which was carrying salt from India to Bangladesh. Upon arrival in Bangladesh, the
defendant gave the salt to M instead of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff sued for conversion. It was held
that the plaintiff has rights over the salt as he had the relevant bills of lading with him. The defendant
had commited conversion when he handed the salt to M.
The third element for conversion is the interference or inconsistent dealing must amount to a
denial or a deprivation of the owner’s right to have possession.
In Fong Chee Chong v Inspector Mohd Nasir bin Shamsuddin & Anor, where the defendant
who had custody of the stolen gold articles and jewellery belonging to the plaintiff was held to have
commited conversion, where the police department was unable to return the gold to the plaintiff after
he demanded for its return from them.
So, those are the three elements needed to give rise for conversion.