(2d)727andKowal v. Ellis(1977)76D.L.R. 75andSouth Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman[1896]2Q.B. What must be shown is that the landowner claimant, who has not acquired ownership of a chattel, is a prior bailee of the chattel with all the rights, but also with all the obligations, of a bailee. The rationale of this rule is probably either that the chattel is to be treated as an integral part of the realty as against all but the true owner and so incapable of being lost or that the finder has to do something to the realty in order to get at or detach the chattel and, if he is not thereby to become a trespasser, will have to justify his actions by reference to some form of licence from the occupier. Mr. Derek Holden, sitting as a deputy circuit judge, decided on November 5, 1980, that the defendants had wrongfully interfered with the gold bracelet and were liable to the plaintiff for its value together with interest. & S.566andBird v. Fort Frances[1949]2D.L.R. I do not doubt that they also claimed the right to exclude individual undesirables, such as drunks, and specific types of chattels such as guns and bombs. 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 learned Deputy County Court Judge. Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2021. South Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharmanwas followed and applied by McNair J. inCity of London Corporation v. Appleyard[1963]1W.L.R. Essentially, your rights depend on how exclusive the area is, though this is difficult to determine. In 1971 the Law Reform Committee reported that it was by no means clear who had the better claim to lost property when the protagonists were the finder and the occupier of the premises where the property was found. He took the bracelet which he found in the lounge into his care and control. At first instance, he was successful, and was awarded 850 as damages and 50 as interest. 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). He was sitting in their lounge and found a bracelet on . The rule as stated by Pratt C.J. 5 minutes know interesting legal mattersParker v British Airways Board [1982] QB 1004 CA. On November 15, 1978, the plaintiff, Alan George Parker, had a date with fate and perhaps with legal immortality. In such a case, the landowner would assert a claim against the finder, not by virtue of his right as owner of land, but by virtue of his right as owner of the chattel. Against all but the true owner a person in possession has the right to possess. Judicial District of Moncton. LORD JUSTICE EVELEIGH,LORD JUSTICE DONALDSON,SIR DAVID CAIRNS, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law Vol. But, equally clearly, he was well aware of the adult qualification "unless the true owner claims the article". Although the owner never claimed the bracelet, British Airways did not return it to Mr Parker. 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. 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. has made in his judgment in relation to the facts in this case. Examples of Exercising Control: This can be viewed as a spectrum ranging from most control to lesser: Bank Vault, Winnie Ma, 'Finders keepers losers weepers?' But despite the plaintiffs requests for its return to him, the defendants sold it on June 17, 1979. 75, 78: the learned judge was mistaken in holding that the place in which they were found makes any legal difference. He was not saying that the place is an irrelevant consideration. I propose to confront those two problems separately. ], 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. The finder, unless he takes the chattels into his care and control with dishonest intentions, acquires a right to keep the chattel against all except the true owner or except one who can claim a superior title to him. Updated daily, vLex brings together legal information from over 750 publishing partners, providing access to over 2,500 legal and news sources from the worlds leading publishers. Thus,In re Cohen, decd. I agree that this appeal should be dismissed. The money had been hidden and not lost and this was not a finding case at all. But that is not the case. 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. Clearly he had not forgotten the schoolboy maxim Finders keepers. But, equally clearly, he was well aware of the adult qualification unless the true owner claims the article. He had had to clear customs and security to reach the lounge. Earlier, however, he said, at p. 78: The notes never were in the custody of the defendant, nor within the protection of his house before they were found I see in those words a recognition of the fact that other considerations might apply in the case of a private house. 65-4, July 2002. Subscribers are able to see the revised versions of legislation with amendments. Mr. Brown, for the plaintiff, relies heavily upon the decision of Patteson J. and Wightman J., sitting in banc inBridges v. Hawkesworth(1851)21L.J.Q.B. He found himself in the international executive lounge at terminal one, Heathrow Airport. D. 562, Grafstein v Holme and Freeman, 12 DLR (2d) 727 (Ont CA), Parker v British Airways Board (1982) 1 All ER 834, Bridges v Hawkesworth (1851), 15 Jur. 1. This case also emphasized that "an occupier who permitted some degree of public access to his land could only claim a better title than an . 505. Accordingly, the common law has been obliged to give rights to someone else, the owner. In its simplest form it was asserted by the chimney sweep's boy who, in 1722, found a jewel and offered it to a jeweller for sale. [1953]Ch. Mr Parker's claim is founded upon the ancient common law rule that the act of finding a chattel which has been lost and taking control of it gives the finder rights with respect to that chattel. British Airways' claim is based upon the proposition that at common law an occupier of land has such rights over all lost chattels which are on that land, whether or not the occupier knows of their existence. They are unlikely to risk invoking the law, particularly against another subsequent dishonest taker, and a subsequent honest taker is likely to have a superior title (see, for example, Buckley v. Gross, (1863) 3 Best & Smith, 566). Held The occupier must attempt to exert control if they want to have the best claim 982. Thus one who finds a lost chattel in the sense of becoming aware of its presence, but who does no more, is not a finder for this purpose and does not, as such, acquire any rights. Counsel: . And it makes no difference that the possessor is not aware of the things existence It is free to anyone who requires a specific intention as part of a de facto possession to treat this as a positive rule of law. British Airways now appeal.. . The case establishes the rights that a person has to a chattel found on the surface of the land. 791. We find, therefore, no circumstances in this case to take it out of the general rule of law, that the finder of a lost article is entitled to it as against all persons except the real owner, and we think that that rule must prevail, and that the learned judge was mistaken in holding that the place in which they were found makes any legal difference. 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. Each of these elements varies greatly in the circumstances of each case. It is reflected in the judgment of Chitty J. in, It is also reflected in the judgment of Lord Goddard C.J. If the discovery had never [not] been communicated to the defendant, could the real owner have had any cause of action against him because they were found in his house? Stewart Parker and Susan Parker (plaintiffs) v. Alfred W. Parker and Bessie Parker (defendants) (M/C/1481/88) Indexed As: Parker v. Parker. inSouth Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman[1896]2Q.B. The first is to determine the general principles or rules of law which are applicable. The relevant facts, as found, were as follows. The judgment of the court was delivered by OSullivan J.A. 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. I also agree that such an intention would probably be manifest in a private house or in a room to which access is very strictly controlled. 791. He found himself in the international executive lounge at terminal one, Heathrow Airport. Lord Russell of Killowen C.J. What the position would have been if the Crown had made a claim was not considered. The Court would then have been faced with two claimants, neither of which had any legal right, but one had de facto possession. The evidence is that they claimed the right to decide who should and who should not be permitted to enter and use the lounge, but their control was in general exercised upon the basis of classes or categories of user and the availability of the lounge in the light of the need to clean and maintain it. Q.B. That was a criminal case concerning the theft of "lost" golf balls on the private land of a club. It should follow therefore that an innocent handler of property who intends to take it for the purpose of discovering the owner and returning it to him should not be in danger of infringing any right in a third party. As a matter of legal theory, the common law has a ready-made solution for every problem and it is only for the Judges, as legal technicians, to find it. However, there the occupier knew of the presence of the logs on the land and had a claim to them as owner as well as occupier. Elwes v. Brigg Gas Co.(1886)33Ch.D. The conflicting rights of finder and occupier have indeed been considered by various courts in the past. Accordingly, the common law has been obliged to give rights to someone else, the owner exhypothesi being unknown. Parker v British Airways Board 1982 1 QB 1004 is an English property law case decided by the Court of Appeal. The second Canadian decision is that of the Manitoba Court of Appeal inKowal v. Ellis(1977)76D.L.R. England. However, he probably has some title, albeit a frail one because of the need to avoid a free-for-all. And that is not all he found. [1], The court upheld Mr Parker's claim, as the bracelet had been found in an area frequented by the public that British Airways Board did not exercise sufficient control over. I am in full agreement with the analysis of the authorities which Donaldson L.J. Thereafter matters took what, to Mr Parker, was an unexpected turn. 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. While there is no authority which is binding on this court, it seems to me thatBridges v. Hawkesworth,21 L.J.Q.B. Wrongdoers should not benefit from their wrongdoing. The plaintiffs prima facie entitlement to a finders rights was not displaced in favour of an employer or principal. It is reflected in the judgment of Chitty J. in Elwes v. Brigg Gas Co., (1886) 33 Ch. An occupier of a chattel, e.g. Thus they acquired a superior title than a finder of goods which are inadvertently left behind by passengers:Grafstein v. Holme and Freeman(1958)12D.L.R. Abstract. 44, D.C. applied. 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. The funadmental basis of this is clearly public policy. Although the owner never claimed the bracelet, the defendants did not return it to the plaintiff. He handed it to the owners of the land (British Airways Board) in order for them to attempt to find the true owner; requesting that the item be returned to him should the original owner not be found. In its simplest form it was asserted by the chimney sweeps boy who, in 1722, found a jewel and offered it to a jeweller for sale. 779. When British Airways instead sold the bracelet, Parker sued. The county court judge dismissed his claim and he appealed. The Committee recommended legislative action but, as is not uncommon, nothing has been done. Lord Justice Donaldson will deliver the first judgment. [Reference was made toSouth Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman[1896]2Q.B. At that stage it was no longer lost and they received and accepted the bracelet from Mr Parker on terms that it would be returned to him if the owner could not be found. We were also referred to two Canadian authorities. The bracelet was never claimed. Perhaps Mr Parker's flight had just been called and he was pressed for time. ], Geoffrey Brownfor the plaintiff. He has the key to the front door. The obvious candidate is the occupier of the property upon which the finder was trespassing. 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. The occupier must attempt to exert control if they want to have the best claim, A person who dishonestly acquires a chattel will have little claim to it, A finder only has a right if it is lost or abandoned and s/he exerts control over it, National Crime Authority v Flack (1998) 86 FCR 16, Waverly Borough Council v Fletcher [1995] 4 All ER 756, Download Parker v British Airways Board [1982] 1 QB 1004 as PDF. Mr. Bridges was a commercial traveller and in the course of his business he called upon the defendant at his shop. He found himself in the International Executive lounge at Terminal One, Heathrow Airport. 791. We know very little about Mr Parker, and it would be nice to know more. Mr Parker's claim is founded upon the ancient common law rule that the act of finding a chattel which has been lost and taking control of it gives the finder rights with respect to that chattel. If the finder takes it into their care with dishonest intent or in the course of trespassing, then they acquire only limited rights. Furthermore, it was not a finding case, for the logs were never lost. It was suggested in argument that in some circumstances the intention of the occupier to assert control over articles lost on his premises speaks for itself. 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. This requirement would be met if the trespassing finder acquired no rights. Ltd. v. York Products Pty. Prima facie, therefore, he had a full finders rights and obligations. Silcott v Louisville Trust: a bank owner had better rights to a bond found on the floor in a safety vault department. 88, the chattels in question were not attached to the land and the occupiers were held to have superior title because of their occupation. I can understand his annoyance. inHibbert v. McKiernan[1948]2K.B. ), refd to. The firmer the control, the less will be the need to demonstrate independently the animus possidendi. & S.566. The conflicting rights of finder and occupier have indeed been considered by various Courts in the past. This makes it essential that the elements of possession should be apparent. On 15th November, 1978, Mr Alan George Parker had a date with fateand perhaps with legal immortality. The correct general rule is that stated inSouth Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman[1896]2Q.B. 1079, 1082 but refer to theLaw Journalversion,21L.J. Parker V British Airways Board (17 May) Lecture notes which are colour coded University University of Canterbury Course International Law (LAWS101) 39 Documents Helpful? Article contents. Dishonest finders will often be trespassers. They counterclaimed for a declaration that they acquired a better title to the bracelet than the plaintiff. They are unlikely to risk invoking the law, particularly against another subsequent dishonest taker, and a subsequent honest taker is likely to have a superior title: see, for example,Buckley v. Gross(1863)3B. In doing so, we should draw from the experience of the past as revealed by the previous decisions of the Courts. The ratio of this decision seems to me to be solely that the unknown presence of the notes on the premises occupied by Mr. Hawkesworth could not without more, give him any rights or impose any duty upon him in relation to the notes. But it seems preferable to say that the legal possession rests on a real de facto possession, constituted by the occupiers general power and intent to exclude unauthorised interference. That is the ground on which I prefer to base my judgment. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the cited cases and legislation of a document. 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. The indictment named the members of the club, who were occupiers of the land, as having property in the balls, and it is clear that at the time when the balls were taken the members were very clearly asserting such a right, even to the extent of mounting a police patrol to warn off trespassers seeking to harvest lost balls. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. (2d)727, Gilchrist Watt and Sanderson Pty. dec. 21 and sir david cairns found on DismissTry Ask an Expert Ask an Expert Sign inRegister Sign inRegister Home Ask an ExpertNew My Library 29 Donaldson LJ in Parker v. B.A. He found himself in the international executive lounge at terminal one, Heathrow Airport. An occupier of premises has a superior title over chattels found on them by a finder where the occupier controls those premises and intends that any chattels lost there would be actively possessed by him or that he would prevent others, other than the true owner, from possessing such chattels:Elwes v. Brigg Gas Co.(1886)33Ch.D. However, I would accept Lord Russell of Killowen C.J.s statement of the general principle inSouth Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman[1896]2Q.B. D. 562 at page 568, although the chattel concerned was beneath the surface of the soil and so subject to different considerations. He had had to clear Customs and Security to reach the lounge. In doing so, we should draw from the experience of the past as revealed by the previous decisions of the Courts. 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. He was almost certainly an outgoing passenger because British Airways, 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, which is a passengers' "club". He was lawfully in the lounge and, as events showed, he was an honest man. He also found a gold bracelet lying on the floor. -- Download Parker v British Airways Board [1982] 1 QB 1004 as PDF --. 1079, but it was not easy to determine its ratio decidendi. As he was leaving the shop, he picked up a small parcel which was lying on the floor, showed it to the shopman and, upon opening it in his presence, found that it contained 65 in notes. 999;[1978]2All E.R. We therefore have both the right and the duty to extend and adapt the common law in the light of established principles and the current needs of the community. The rights of the parties thus depend upon the common law. I must now return to the respective claims of the plaintiff and the defendants. Get access. 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. The rule as stated by Pratt C.J. 49. The reality is somewhat different. The defendants, for their part, cannot assert any title to the bracelet based upon the rights of an occupier over chattels attached to a building. and Eveleigh L.J., that, in a situation at all similar to that which we are considering, the occupier has a better claim than the finder only if he had possession of the article immediately before it was found and that this is only so (in the case of an article notinorattached tothe land but onlyonit) when the occupiers intention to exercise control is manifest.