In Armstead v Royal Sun Alliance Insurance Company Ltd, the Court of Appeal considered the limits of the ‘proprietary fiction’ established by The Winkfield, allowing bailees to recover loss through their possessory title of bailment property against a wrongdoer. Despite the decision being defensible on its facts, the Court of Appeal failed to clarify: (i) whose consequential loss the bailee can recover, or whether the bailee and bailor possess ‘one set of rights’; (ii) the interface between the recoverability of third-party contractual liabilities in tort and the rules of bailment; and (iii) the nature and scope of the ‘proprietary fiction’ established by The Winkfield. This note argues that the bailee's claim against the wrongdoer arises solely from the possessory title (without reference to the bailor) and the ordinary rules of tort should apply after establishing such title.

中文翻译：

---

Armstead 诉 Royal Sun Alliance Insurance Company Ltd：温克菲尔德与科纳肯之间的交集

在Armstead诉Royal Sun Alliance Insurance Company Ltd案中，上诉法院考虑了The Winkfield确立的“专有虚构”的限制，允许受托人通过其对不法行为者的寄托财产占有权来追偿损失。尽管该判决在事实上是站得住脚的，但上诉法院未能澄清：(i) 受托人可以追偿谁的间接损失，或者受托人和委托人是否拥有“一套权利”；(ii) 侵权中第三方合同责任的可追偿性与寄托规则之间的联系；(iii) The Winkfield所确立的“专有虚构”的性质和范围。本注释认为，受托人对不法行为人的索赔仅源于占有所有权（不涉及委托人），并且在确立这种所有权后应适用普通侵权规则。