I see the force of this submission. in distinguishingBridges v. Hawkesworthexpressed views which, in Mr. Deschs submission, point to the defendants having a superior claim to that of the plaintiff on the facts of the instant case. He was saying that there was nothing in the place where the notes were found to rebut the principle of finders keepers. There was nothing special about it. Ltd. v. York Products Pty. But those instructions were not published to users of the lounge. The only issue was whether for the purposes of the criminal law property in the golf balls could be laid in someone other than the alleged thief. One might have expected there to be decisions clearly qualifying the general rule where the circumstances are that someone finds a chattel and thereupon forms the dishonest intention of keeping it regardless of the rights of the true owner or of anyone else. (Bond University), This page was last edited on 12 April 2023, at 12:02. There workmen demolishing a building found money in a safe which was recessed in one of the walls. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. 4, October 2005, The Modern Law Review Nbr. But under the rules of English jurisprudence, none of their decisions binds this court. 288. Wrongdoers should not benefit from their wrongdoing. 437the issue was whether the sheriff on behalf of a judgment creditor had a claim to money which the judgment debtor took to his house at a time when the sheriff had taken walking possession of that house, albeit the sheriff had been unaware of the arrival of the money. In the instant case, the plaintiff was a passenger with a ticket and, thus, was not a trespasser. Elwes v. Brigg Gas Co.,33Ch.D. We are concerned to consider them in relation to a bracelet, obviously lost by its owner, found on the floor of the executive lounge at London Airport. They must and do claim on the basis that they had rights in relation to the bracelet immediately before Mr Parker found it and that these rights are superior to Mr Parker's. I do not myself support the criticism that has been levelled against Lord Russell of Killowen C.J.s words by those who state broadly that the place makes no difference and call in support the words of Patteson J. inBridges v. Hawkesworth,21L.J.Q.B. Parker v British Airways Board -Test for Finder v Occupier of Land:Obiter 1079. 1079, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parker_v_British_Airways_Board&oldid=1149463390. He also gave the official a note of his name and address and asked for the bracelet to be returned to him if it was not claimed by the owner. We know very little about the plaintiff, and it would be nice to know more. A bracelet was found by a passenger named Parker in an executive lounge, which a section of the public had the right to access based on their ticket class. This seems to be the law in Ontario, Canada (, Request a trial to view additional results, Daniel s/o D William v Luhat Wan and Others and Luhat Wan v Social and Welfare Services Lotteries Board and Others, Marcq v Christie Manson and Woods Ltd (t/a Christie's), Costello v Chief Constable of Derbyshire Constabulary. 562, 568, although the chattel concerned was beneath the surface of the soil and so subject to different considerations. The bracelet had been lost by its rightful owner. In the interests of clearing the ground and identifying the problem, let me now turn to another situation in respect of which the law is reasonably clear. I am in full agreement with the analysis of the authorities which Donaldson L.J. Reasonable Steps: Reasonable steps are not defined in the case, but there are usual methods such as lost and found boxes (which was the subject of the dispute), leaving word that you have it with people who inhabit or occupy the area, Craigslist, posters on telephone poles, classifieds in the newspaper, etc. British Airways Board were thus unable to assert superior title over the bracelet.[2]. In between these extremes are the forecourts of petrol filling stations, unfenced front gardens of private houses, the public parts of shops and supermarkets as part of an almost infinite variety of land, premises and circumstances. Article. Curiously enough, it is difficult to find any case in which the rule is stated in this simple form, but I have no doubt that this is the law. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. If the finder is not a wrongdoer, he may have some rights, but the occupier of the land or building will have a better title. has made in his judgment in relation to the facts in this case. [Reference was made toSouth Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman[1896]2Q.B. Unless otherwise agreed, any servant or agent who finds a chattel in the course of his employment or agency and not wholly incidentally or collaterally thereto and who takes it into his care and control does so on behalf of his employer or principal who acquires a finders rights to the exclusion of those of the actual finder. Whatever the reason, he gave the bracelet to an anonymous British Airways official instead of to the police. He has the key to the front door. Hibbert v. McKiernan[1948]2K.B. (In the manner that is reasonable under the circumstances.). It is rather like the strong room of a bank, where I think it would be difficult indeed to suggest that a bracelet lying on the floor was not in the possession of the bank. 75, was emphasised by Lord Russell of Killowen C.J. The plaintiff was driving across the defendants land when he saw an abandoned pump on that land. Stewart Parker and Susan Parker (plaintiffs) v. Alfred W. Parker and Bessie Parker (defendants) (M/C/1481/88) Indexed As: Parker v. Parker. 75. In the case before us, however, the defendant asserts no such right of ownership. This is not to say that we start with a clean sheet. Adrift on a sea of troubles: cross-border art loans and the specter of ulterior title. 509;[1945]2All E.R. The defendant airways occupied, as lessees, the international executive lounge at an airways terminal and permitted passengers of specific classes to use it. The conflicting rights of finder and occupier have indeed been considered by various Courts in the past. Parker V British Airways Board (17 May) Case analysis exercise of Ngoi v Wen [2017 ] NZCA 519; Session 11 Directors duties 2.docx; Newest. "That the finder of a jewel, though he does not by such finding acquire an absolute property or ownership, yet he has such a property as will enable him to keep it against all but the rightful owner, and consequently may maintain trover". Where the finder has a dishonest intent he would be a trespasser and would not risk invoking the law but a subsequent honest finder would have a superior title:Buckley v. Gross(1863)3B. He also found a gold bracelet lying on the floor. ], On the facts of the instant case the defendants are in a similar position as an innkeeper being the lessees of the lounge permitting selected members of the public to use the lounge. Trial Division. technology developed exclusively by vLex editorially enriches legal information to make it accessible, with instant translation into 14 languages for enhanced discoverability and comparative research. Mark Pawlowski looks at the case law on the ownership of objects found on or in land 'Where an object is found attached to realty (ie, land or buildings), the finder (who is not a . On November 15, 1978, the plaintiff, Alan George Parker, had a date with fateand perhaps E with legal immortality. 1079, can be distinguished and he referred us to the judgment of Lord Russell of Killowen C.J., with which Wills J. agreed, inSouth Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman[1896]2Q.B. Parker v British Airways Board [1982] 1 QB 1004 FACTS: An airline passenger found a bracelet on the floor of the executive lounge - handed to employee of licensee of premises. delivered the first judgment. 509the occupier was not in physical possession of the premises. 509.]. The finder only acquires any rights against the world as a whole. The jeweller could only have succeeded if the fact of finding and taking control of the jewel conferred no rights upon the boy. And that was not all that he found. See alsoBridges v. Hawkesworth(1851)21L.J.Q.B. 44from that of McNair J. inCity of London Corporation v. Appleyard[1963]1W.L.R. Two years later Mr. Holme and Mr. Freeman decided to open the box and found that it contained Canadian $38,000 in notes. In Parker v British Airways Board , [102] the plaintiff found a gold bracelet on the floor of an airport executive lounge operated and occupied by the defendants. I can understand his annoyance. On 15th November, 1978, Mr Alan George Parker had a date with fateand perhaps with legal immortality. Dishonest finders will often be trespassers. 1982); see also Parker v. British Airways Bd., be subject to a free-for-all in which the physically weakest wouldgo to the wall: per Donaldson LJ in Parker v British Airways Board, buried in the sand on a public beach owned by the council, 34 Beaver v The Queen , [1957] SCR 531, 118 CCC 129. Thus,In re Cohen, decd. Then we were referred to Parker v BA Board, been, not as it was there, but as, in the opinion of this court, it is in the present case." 505, andBridges v. Hawkesworth,21L.J.Q.B. Parker v British Airways Board [1982] 1 QB 1004 - 03-13-2018 by casesummaries - Law Case Summaries - http://lawcasesummaries.com Parker v British Airways Board [1982] 1 QB 1004 http://lawcasesummaries.com/knowledge-base/parker-v-british-airways-board-1982-1-qb-1004/ Facts Issue Held man finds a gold bracelet in an airport. The shop was open to the public, and they were invited to come there. The county court judge dismissed his claim and he appealed. In the present case the plaintiff could not be a true finder because when the bracelet was lost and before it was found the defendants had title as against an unascertained finder. Once there was a finding that the golf balls belonged to the members of the golf course, it followed that the finder had no right of possession as against the true owners of the balls. An alternative to lists of cases, the Precedent Map makes it easier to establish which ones may be of most relevance to your research and prioritise further reading. Those were cases in which a thing was cast into a public place or into the sea into a place, in fact, of which it could not be said that anyone had a real de facto possession, or a general power and intent to exclude unauthorised interference Bridges v. Hawkesworthstands by itself, and on special grounds; and on those grounds it seems to me that the decision in that case was right. But it is impossible to go further and to hold that the mere right of an occupier to exercise such control is sufficient to give him rights in relation to lost property on his premises without overrulingBridges v. Hawkesworth,21L.J.Q.B. In doing so, we should draw from the experience of the past as revealed by the previous decisions of the Courts. inHibbert v. McKiernan[1948]2K.B. 44, 4647, provided that the occupiers intention to exercise control over anything which might be on the premises was manifest. Who has a better claim, him or the airport? Left his contact details in the event that the owner did not reclaim. Thereafter matters took what, to Mr Parker, was an unexpected turn. At that stage it was no longer lost and they received and accepted the bracelet from the plaintiff on terms that it would be returned to him if the owner could not be found. They could be the owner, tenant, etc. Held, dismissing the appeal, that the plaintiff in taking the bracelet into his care and control acquired rights of possession except against the true owner and in handing it to an official of the defendants he acted honestly and in discharge of his obligations as a finder; that his rights could only be displaced by the defendants if they could show as occupiers an obvious intention to exercise such control over the lounge and things in it that the bracelet was in their possession before the plaintiff found it; that, on the evidence there was no manifestation of such an intention as would give the defendants a right superior to that of the plaintiff and, accordingly, the judge came to the right conclusion (post, pp. There could be a number of reasons. Article contents. Accordingly, the common law has been obliged to give rights to someone else, the owner exhypothesi being unknown. If all that was wrong then that case was wrongly decided. He found himself in the International Executive lounge at Terminal One, Heathrow Airport. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the cited cases and legislation of a document. 142, 149. South Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharmanwas followed and applied by McNair J. inCity of London Corporation v. Appleyard[1963]1W.L.R. The only issue was whether for the purposes of the criminal law property in the golf balls could be laid in someone other than the alleged thief. The court treated the moment of finding the money as that at which the box was opened, rather than when the box was found. He handed it to an employee of the defendants and gave the employee his name and address and requested that if the owner did not claim the bracelet it should be returned to him. The plaintiff delivered the bracelet to an employee of the defendants, British Airways Board, together with particulars of the plaintiffs name and address and orally requested that in the event of the bracelet not being claimed by the rightful owner it should be returned to the plaintiff. Subscribers are able to see the revised versions of legislation with amendments. Accordingly, Mr. Desch rightly directed our attention to the need to have common law rules which will facilitate rather than hinder the ascertainment of the true owner of a lost chattel and a reunion between the two. Clearly he had not forgotten the schoolboy maxim "Finders keepers". 38 Nbr. Grafstein v. Holme and Freeman(1958)12D.L.R. There could be no logical reason for according more favourable treatment to an airways board which admits only a fraction of the public to a particular lounge (but a fraction which includes all first class passengers and some others) and a shopkeeper who imposes no restriction on entry to his shop while it is open (but who would be entitled to refuse entry to anybody if he thought fit). The jeweller could only have succeeded if the fact of finding and taking control of the jewel conferred no rights upon the boy. 152the claimant established a title derived from that of the true owner. Against all but the true owner a person in possession has the right to possess. In this connection we have been greatly assisted both by the arguments of counsel, and in particular those of Mr. Desch upon whom the main burden fell, and by the admirable judgment of the deputy judge in the county court. First, as an academic property lawyer by background, any case that acknowledges theoretical principles, such as the relativity of title applied in Parker, will be a hit with me. I would be inclined to say that the occupier of a house will almost invariably possess any lost article on the premises. Natalie says: " I choose Parker as my favourite case for three reasons. Perhaps the only officials in sight were employees of British Airways. One can imagine cases where a chattel is abandoned by its first owner and may then become the property of someone else, perhaps a landowner who exercises control and dominion over it. But there is. 71, 98 Palmer v Bowman, [2000] 1 WLR 842 (CA) 143 Parker v British Airways Board. 509. Bridges v. Hawkesworth(1851)21L.J.Q.B. Although the owner never claimed the bracelet, the defendants did not return it to the plaintiff. The conflicting rights of finder and occupier have indeed been considered by various Courts in the past. He sued British Airways in the Brentford County Court and was awarded 850 as damage and 50 as interest. However, I think that it is also true that if this were the rule and finders had no prospect of any reward, they would be tempted to pass by without taking any action or to become concealed keepers of articles which they found. InIn re Cohen, decd. a ship, motor car, caravan or aircraft, is to be treated as if he were the occupier of a building for the purposes of the foregoing rules. The issue was whether the money belonged to the estate of the husband or to that of the wife. They must and do claim on the basis that they had rights in relation to the bracelet. I agree that this appeal should be dismissed. Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. 982. Employees finding items in the course of their employment are finding it on behalf of their employer (unless there is agreement otherwise). Those rights do exist at common law and if the law was found wanting it should confer rights on the occupier because it is the occupier of the premises to whom the loser would refer to on discovering his loss. as saying that it is necessary for the occupier to prove that his intention was obvious. Wrongdoers should not benefit from their wrongdoing. As to thieves and trespassers (in the sense of trespassers to the place where the thing was found) I express no concluded opinion, since the plaintiff was not in either of those categories. But, equally clearly, he was well aware of the adult qualification "unless the true owner claims the article". D. 562 at page 568, although the chattel concerned was beneath the surface of the soil and so subject to different considerations. Some question arose as to whether he was a trespasser, but the court held that at the time when he took possession of the pump he had the defendants permission to go on the land. It was well asked, on the argument, if the defendant has the right,whendid it accrue to him? 1981 nov. 16, eveleigh and donaldson ljj. [1953]Ch. He, obviously, acted honestly and discharged his obligations of trying to find and to notify the true owner. The finder of a chattel acquires no rights over it unless (a) it has been abandoned or lost and (b) he takes it into his care and control. The decision is sufficiently important, and the judgment sufficiently short and difficult to find, for me to feel justified in reproducing it in full. 65-4, July 2002. Take the householder. 88, the chattels in question were not attached to the land and the occupiers were held to have superior title because of their occupation. The rule as stated by Pratt C.J. (2d)727, 734: I do not think that anyone could seriously quarrel with the principle as extended by Lord Russell in that way so long as it is established in evidence as a basis for the presumption that the occupier has in fact the possession of house or land, with a manifest intention to exercise control over it (i.e., the land or the house) and the things which may be upon or in it I say this because I think there must be a natural presumption of possession in favour of the person in occupation a presumption which hardly needs a legal decision for its authority.. He was almost certainly an outgoing passenger because the defendants, British Airways Board, as lessees of the lounge from the British Airports Authority and its occupiers, limit its use to passengers who hold first class tickets or boarding passes or who are members of their Executive Club. The judgment of Donaldson LJ begins the facts in a rather poetic manner: On 15 November 1978, the plaintiff, Alan George Parker, had a date with fate - and perhaps with legal immortality. Donaldson LJ held that this was a case of "finders keepers". 982;[1963]2All E.R. Parker V British Airways Board (17 May) Lecture notes which are colour coded University University of Canterbury Course International Law (LAWS101) 39 Documents Helpful? In doing so, we should draw from the experience of the past as revealed by the previous decisions of the courts. 152;[1969]2W.L.R. However, he probably has some title, albeit a frail one because of the need to avoid a free-for-all. The defendants claim has a different basis. This again is not a finding case. 75,15Jur. Some qualification has also to be made in the case of the trespassing finder. ruled "That the finder of a jewel, though he does not by such finding acquire an absolute property or ownership, yet he has such a property as will enable him to keep it against all but the rightful owner, and consequently may maintain trover". McNair J. upheld the corporations claim. 1262;[1970]3All E.R. In that case the jeweller clearly had no rights in relation to the jewel immediately before the boy found it and any rights which he acquired when he received it from the boy stemmed from the boy himself. 562, the landowner succeeded against the finder of a boat because the landowner proved that it was the owner of the boat, which had become embedded in the soil. 1981 - Studocu CASE MATERIAL 1004 or parker british airways board no. 779. An occupier of a building has rights superior to those of a finder over chattels upon or in, but not attached to, that building if, but only if, before the chattel is found, he has manifested an intention to exercise control over the building and the things which may be upon it or in it. The occupier was the Crown, which made no claim either as occupier or as employer of the finder. That was a criminal case concerning the theft of "lost" golf balls on the private land of a club. At the other extreme is the park to which the public has unrestricted access during daylight hours. That was a criminal case concerning the theft of "lost" golf balls on the private land of a club. intended to extend the statement of principle inPollock and Wright,Possession in the Common Lawto include things upon land or in a house. (3d)546. The defendants had no superior title to the bracelet than the plaintiff. The first is to determine the general principles or rules of law which are applicable. 72 Report Document Comments Please sign inor registerto post comments. Mr G.C. Accordingly, the common law has been obliged to give rights to someone else, the owner. He found himself in the international executive lounge at terminal one, Heathrow Airport. Subscribers can access the reported version of this case. 44, 47, Lord Russell of Killowen C.J. The funadmental basis of this is clearly public policy. Mr. Desch. Ltd. v. York Products Pty. The defendants now appeal. Perhaps the only officials in sight were employees of British Airways. City of London Corporation v. Appleyard[1963]1W.L.R. The jeweller refused either to pay a price acceptable to the boy or to return it and the boy sued the jeweller for its value:Armory v. Delamirie(1722)1Stra. in. He also found a gold bracelet lying on the floor. On 15th November, 1978, Mr Alan George Parker had a date with fateand perhaps with legal immortality. The plaintiff was not a trespasser in the executive lounge and, in taking the bracelet into his care and control, he was acting with obvious honesty. I am sure that no one would be more surprised than the defendant if, prior to the finding by the plaintiff, the true owner had come along and asserted that the defendant landowner owed him any duty either to take care of the pump or to seek out the owner of it. 562. 271. And that was not all that he found. Who has better property rights, the owner of a premise or him? Search over 120 million documents from over 100 countries including primary and secondary collections of legislation, case law, regulations, practical law, news, forms and contracts, books, journals, and more.
