Chartered Trust plc v The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, Michael Andrew and Denis Sully
(Court of Appeal 14 April 1999)

In May 1992, Mr Andrew obtained a Bentley car, priced at £30,000 from a garage. He The deal was financed by a hire-purchase agreement with Chartered Trust. After about two months, he stopped his payments, claiming that the vehicle had been stolen.
In December 1992, Mr Sully claimed that he saw the Bentley being driven by his friend, Mr Calvert, and agreed to buy the car for £21,200.
In June 1994, the police seized the car from Mr Sully because of the report that it had been stolen. Chartered Trust then claimed the vehicle. Mr Sully claimed that he was entitled to the vehicle. This had to be resolved under the Police Property Act 1897, and was therefore referred to the County Court.
The finance company attempted to serve a witness summons on Mr Andrew prior to the hearing in May 1998, and found that he was abroad. They therefore attempted to rely on a written statement which Mr Andrew had made previously. The Recorder refused to accept the statement, nor to delay the proceedings for Mr Andrew to appear in person.
The finance company could not therefore prove that the car had been stolen. (This would have helped them to show that Mr Andrew had not "disposed" of the car, as would be required for Section 27 of the Hire Purchase Act 1964 to apply.)
The Recorder then decided that Mr Sully was a purchaser in good faith, and could obtain title to the goods by means of Section 27.
The finance company then appealed, and the Court were not convinced that Mr Sully was acting "in good faith". He had purchased for £21,200 a car that a few months earlier had been valued at £30,000, and would not be expected to depreciate; he had not been given the logbook, but had not seemed worried by that; he had asked Calvert to check that the car was not covered by Hire Purchase Information.
It could not be said that he was acting in good faith, rather, there were so many questions raised in the course of his purchase, that an innocent purchaser would have required answers before proceeding to complete the deal.

It followed that Mr Sully could not get good title, and this remained with the finance company.