Authorities approve bank's plan to auction off contents of safe deposit boxes
** Published at 09 Jun 2025**
A French Bank Gets the Green Light to Sell Century-Old Unclaimed Items from London Branch
In a thrilling court ruling on June 6th, Judge Richard Smith examined the contents of 14 safety deposit boxes, long forgotten for a staggering 44 to 122 years, housed within the London branch of a French bank. The bank wanted the authority to sell the contents of these boxes, and they got it, under certain conditions.
THE NUTS AND BOLTS
Crédit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, through their predecessors, Crédit Lyonnais and Banque de l'Indochine, offered customers the chance to deposit items in safety deposit boxes in London since around 1900. By 1994, Crédit Lyonnais had shut down its UK retail branches, and no new deposits were made. Despite reaching out to box holders and requesting they empty their boxes, many did not respond or were unreachable. The same issue arose for the successor entity of Banque de l'Indochine. The boxes were moved to a third-party storage facility in 2004, and they arrived back at the bank's London location in 2016. Despite efforts from 2019, the bank was unable to locate the owners.
COURTROOM DRAMA
In 2021 the bank petitioned the court for interim relief, which enabled them to open and inspect the contents of the boxes, primarily to identify the items and consider their handling for subsequent proceedings. This resulted in the ongoing court case, with the bank seeking final relief to sell the contents of the 14 boxes based on two distinct legal arguments.
For items deposited after January 1, 1978, the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 applied. The bank leveraged the principles of common law for items lodged before that date. Ultimately, the bank claimed they had made every reasonable attempt to locate the owners and should be allowed to sell the items to resolve the issue responsibly.
THE VERDICT
The court agreed that, for items deposited after 1978, the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 applied, confirming that Section 12 of the Act allows a bailee to sell goods if the bailor fails to meet their obligation to retrieve the goods, the bailee cannot trace or reach the bailor, or the bailee believes they can efficiently be relieved of any obligation to safeguard the goods. The court determined that the bank had taken reasonable efforts to locate the owners and was entitled to sell the items under Section 12(3)(b) of the Act.
For items deposited before 1978, the court accepted the bank's argument that the bailment had expired due to natural passage of time, that the items had been abandoned, and that the bank served as a bailee of necessity. Additionally, the court agreed that the bank had made every reasonable effort to locate the owners and now held the status of an involuntary bailee. As such, the bank was entitled to sell the items without bearing liability, provided they acted reasonably and in good faith.
THE REASONING
The court's decision hinged on several key cases. Sachs v Miklos (1948) found that a bailee could sell goods when the bailor showed no interest and did not respond to notices. In Ridyard v Roberts (1980), and referring to the 1977 Act, the court deemed a bailee of necessity could sell goods if it was reasonable to do so.
The court, therefore, granted the bank the authorization to sell the contents of the 14 boxes, contingent on seeking expert advice on the value and appropriate distribution channels for the items, and retaining the proceeds (minus their expenses) in court for the benefit of the bailors or their heirs.
THE PLAYERS
In Crédit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank and Others v Unknown Defendants, the claimant was represented by Tom De Vecchi of 3VB, instructed by Watson Farley & Williams.
In the context of the court case, Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, through their historical ties with Credit Lyonnais and Banque de l'Indochine, sought to use their London branch's unclaimed items from safety deposit boxes for business purposes, specifically in finance, by selling the contents of the boxes. The bank argued for this action in the courtroom drama, citing legal justifications based on business responsibilities and legal acts such as the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977.
