Is there a separate action for loss of property based on conversion of a trailer without lawful justification?

Considering the Bishop v. Land decision more closely, it was held that the second action arose out of the joint venture, and therefore only one proceeding was appropriate. It should be noted, however, that the second action alleged a conversion of a trailer without lawful justification, while the first action was comprised of a number of claims, including a claim for rent pursuant to a lease. With respect, in my view the loss of property based on conversion is a separate action to the claim of rental arrears pursuant to a lease. Although both claims stemmed from the joint venture relationship, both the factual situations and the legal issues were different. I find I disagree with the decision reached by Stansfield A.C.J.