The bank was in possession of a large number of items deposited between 1900 and 1994 and contained in safety deposit boxes. The boxes had not been accessed for many years and the bank had been unable to trace the depositors, representatives of their estates or anyone interested in the items they contained. The bank wanted to sell such items as were saleable and not collected by their owners. In relation to items deposited on or after 1 January 1978, it could bring proceedings pursuant to section 13 of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977, under which the court had jurisdiction to authorise the sale of goods which had been bailed. So far as goods deposited prior to that date were concerned, the bank intended to seek a declaration that it was entitled at common law to sell the goods. Since an inspection of the contents of the boxes might provide information as to the identity of a potential owner of the items, the bank sought an order permitting it to inspect the goods. The question arose whether in a case where the identity of the bailor or anyone else with a possible claim to the goods was unknown, could the bailee (1) bring proceedings under either the 1977 Act or at common law, and (2) apply for order for inspection of goods with a view to bringing such proceedings.
On the application—
Held, application granted. Section 13 of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 contemplated that a bailee could apply to the court to authorise a sale of goods, which had been bailed, where the bailee was not able to trace or communicate with the bailor. Therefore, in the absence of any relevant rule in the CPR it was for the court to evolve the most suitable procedure to deal with such an application. The court could exercise its power under section 13 of the 1977 Act in proceedings where there was no respondent. Moreover, a bailee who intended to make an application under section 13 could also apply for an order for inspection of the goods without joining a respondent. However, in proceedings for a declaration that the bailee had a common law right of sale, there had to be defendant, since without one the declaration would not bind anyone. In the present case the bank could join defendants by using words of description for the persons who would be appropriate defendants to its claim for a declaration. Prima facie the bank would not be able to communicate with the individuals who came within that description, but, in the circumstances, that was not a reason to prevent the bank from bringing a claim. The bank would be directed to post a notice of the proceedings in the room where the safety deposit boxes were stored. As with substantive proceedings for a declaration, the bank could apply for an order for inspection of the goods by using words of description rather than naming the defendants. In the circumstances, it was appropriate to grant the order for inspection sought (paras 13, 16, 17, 20, 41–43, 47, 48).
Tom De Vecchi (instructed by Watson, Farley & Williams LLP) for the bank.