Nemo dat and theft:the need for clarity of the impact of the criminal status of rogue middlemen in title conflicts

The basic rule concerning title in English and Welsh law is nemo dat quod non habet: you cannot give what you have not got. The rule causes title conflicts, such as: the original owner hands over their goods to a middleman who disposes them without the original owner’s authority or consent to an innocent purchaser. The middleman either disappears or is not worth suing, meaning the dispute is (almost) invariably between the original owner and the innocent purchaser. Given that stolen goods cannot have their title laundered by a nemo dat exception, the delineation between stolen and non-stolen goods is a key issue but it remains unclear, exacerbated by developments in criminal law over the past twenty years. At the core of this problematization is a question of justice as to innocent purchasers, whose position turns on factors outside their knowledge and control.

Publication Details

Journal
White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York)
Published
2025-12-02
Primary Topic
Legal principles and applications
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Nemo dat and theft:the need for clarity of the impact of the criminal status of rogue middlemen in title conflicts

White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York)
Legal principles and applications
article

Nemo dat and theft:the need for clarity of the impact of the criminal status of rogue middlemen in title conflicts

article en

Abstract

The basic rule concerning title in English and Welsh law is nemo dat quod non habet: you cannot give what you have not got. The rule causes title conflicts, such as: the original owner hands over their goods to a middleman who disposes them without the original owner’s authority or consent to an innocent purchaser. The middleman either disappears or is not worth suing, meaning the dispute is (almost) invariably between the original owner and the innocent purchaser. Given that stolen goods cannot have their title laundered by a nemo dat exception, the delineation between stolen and non-stolen goods is a key issue but it remains unclear, exacerbated by developments in criminal law over the past twenty years. At the core of this problematization is a question of justice as to innocent purchasers, whose position turns on factors outside their knowledge and control.

White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 33%
Legal principles and applications
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.