For conversion claims, ownership alone does not confer standing; the plaintiff must show possession or immediate right to possession of the goods converted.

[1] The respondent successfully sued the appellants for damages arising from the tort of conversion. As the proceedings are bifurcated on agreement of the parties, the learned judge ordered damages to be assessed after finding the appellants liable. That exercise is presently awaiting the disposal of this appeal.

Material Facts

[2] The respondent was the registered proprietor of commercial properties known as Putra Place and The Legend Resort (collectively referred to as "the Hotels"). It was also in the business of owning and operating a hospitality training business/centre ("the Leisure Business"). Under a Leisure and Office Management Agreement dated 1 October 2010 entered into between the respondent and a company known as Legend Management Group Sdn Bhd ("LMG"), the entire management, administration, marketing and operation of the Hotels and the Leisure Business was contracted to LMG for a term of eight years ("Management Agreement") subject to various terms and conditions.

[3] Amongst the properties and businesses located at Putra Place was a shopping complex then known as "the Mall" and a hotel also then known as "The Legend Hotel". The Legend Hotel comprised 631 rooms, service apartments, four penthouses, and 1,323 parking bays.

[4] The facts leading to an order for the sale of Putra Place are not relevant for the purpose of the present dispute save to say that such an order was granted by the High Court and Putra Place was subsequently auctioned. The 1st appellant was the successful bidder at the auction held on 30 March 2011. The 1st appellant purchased Putra Place as trustee of Sunway Real Estate Investment Trust. The 2nd appellant is the Manager of that Trust. After payment of the full purchase price, Putra Place was registered in the name of the 1st appellant on 19 April 2011.

[5] Disputes arose soon after, when the appellants wanted to take possession of Putra Place. The appellants issued notices requiring the occupants of Putra Place to vacate the premises within seven days. Security personnel were stationed at Putra Place. The respondent refused to yield possession, control and management of Putra Place to the appellants, demanding instead that an order of possession be first procured from the Court. Meanwhile, the Legend Hotel continued to operate at Putra Place, operated and managed by LMG.

[6] On 28 June 2011, the appellants obtained an order of possession from the High Court. Together with that order was an order for assessment of damages for the period of holding over of possession starting from 28 April 2011. This order was stayed pending the respondent's appeal to the Court of Appeal.

[7] On 28 September 2011, the respondent handed over possession of Putra Place. Possession was done at a formal meeting between the lawyers representing the respective parties.

[8] The respondent's appeal has since been dismissed. The assessment of damages for holding over was subsequently conducted and the respondent satisfied the order for damages on 19 April 2016. On 28 February 2018, the Federal Court dismissed the respondent's application for leave to appeal.

[9] On 28 September 2015, almost four years after the formal handing over of possession, the respondent commenced proceedings for damages alleging that the appellants were liable for the tort of conversion of goods that it had left behind at the Legend Hotel. The claim was initially also founded on the tort of detinue, trespass to goods and unjust enrichment. These claims were abandoned at the stage of submissions at the High Court.

[10] At the heart of the respondent's claim is the matter of the entire moveable chattels within the Legend Hotel comprising furniture, cutlery, bar equipment, tables, room linen, curtains, d