What the position would have been if the Crown had made a claim was not considered. Summary: A agreed to let B use A's driveway as a right of way to B's property. 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 plaintiff was driving across the defendants land when he saw an abandoned pump on that land. It is also reflected in the judgment of Lord Goddard C.J. This requirement would be met if the trespassing finder acquired no rights. Mr. Bridges was a commercial traveller and in the course of his business he called upon the defendant at his shop. Sharmanscase itself is readily distinguishable, either upon the ground that the rings were in the mud and thus part of the realty or upon the ground that the finders were employed by the plaintiff to remove the mud and had a clear right to direct how the mud and anything in it should be disposed of, or upon both grounds. However, it is more convenient to consider these dicta hereafter. Again, in the interest of clearing the ground, I should like to dispose briefly of some of the other cases to which we were quite rightly referred and to do so upon the grounds that, when analysed, they do not really bear upon the instant problem. He sued British Airways in the Brentford County Court and was awarded 850 as damage and 50 as interest. They counterclaimed for a declaration that they acquired a better title to the bracelet than the plaintiff. They cannot and do not claim to have found the bracelet when it was handed to them by Mr Parker. He had had to clear Customs and Security to reach the lounge. The defendants alleged in their defence that the executive lounge could be entered by visitors only at the express invitation of the defendants and then only provided that they were in possession of the appropriate documentation. It is reflected in the judgment of Chitty J. in, It is also reflected in the judgment of Lord Goddard C.J. The following additional cases were cited in argument: Gilchrist Watt and Sanderson Pty. Some qualification has also to be made in the case of the trespassing finder. Clearly he had not forgotten the schoolboy maxim "Finders keepers". A passenger named Parker found a gold bracelet on the floor of an executive lounge at Heathrow airport. If all that was wrong then that case was wrongly decided. Accordingly, the common law has been obliged to give rights to someone else, the owner exhypothesi being unknown. And that was not all that he found. 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. Furthermore, it was not a finding case, for the logs were never lost. A passenger named Parker found a gold bracelet on the floor of an executive lounge at Heathrow airport. 860,D.C. Kowal v. Ellis(1977)76D.L.R. They could be the owner, tenant, etc. Parker v British Airways Board [1982] Q.B. The common law right asserted by the plaintiff has been recognised for centuries. British Airways Board were thus unable to assert superior title over the bracelet.[2]. Board. During those hours there is no manifest intention to exercise any such control. But that is not the case. Parker v Chief Constable of the Hampshire Constabulary: CA 25 Jun 1999 Christofi v Barclays Bank Plc: CA 28 Jun 1999 Demite Limited v Protec Health Limited; Dayman and Gilbert: CA 24 Jun 1999 Dr Adoko v Jemal: CA 22 Jun 1999 Demirkaya v Secretary of State for Home Department: CA 23 Jun 1999 142 at page 149. We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. The county court judge dismissed his claim and he appealed. Indeed, it seems that the academics have been debating this problem for years. 1079. Accordingly, the common law has been obliged to give rights to someone else, the owner ex hypothesi being unknown. Take the present case. 982, Criminal solicitor struck off for series of bail breaches, Jarryd Hayne imprisoned after sexual assault convictions, Jarryd Hayne again found guilty of sexual assault. Mr. Hawkesworth undoubtedly had a right to exercise such control, but his defence failed. A person permitted upon the property of another must respect the lawful claims of the occupier as the terms upon which he is allowed to enter, but it is only right that those claims or terms should be made clear. 1079, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parker_v_British_Airways_Board&oldid=1149463390. Thus,In re Cohen, decd. The rights of the parties thus depend upon the common law. (2d)727, the Ontario Court of Appeal considered the competing claims of Mr. Grafstein, the owner-occupier of a dry goods store, and Mr. Holme and Mr. Freeman, his employees. Likewise the occupier has superior rights to things attached to a building, even if they did not know it was there. 1018DG,1019AD,E1020B,G1021A,CF). South Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman[1896]2Q.B. [1953]Ch. Thus far the story is unremarkable. Facts: o A gold bracelet was found lying on the floor in the executive lounge at Heathrow airport. It was held that he was entitled to do so, the ground of the decision being, as was pointed out by Patteson J., that the notes, being dropped in the public part of the shop, were never in the custody of the shopkeeper, or within the protection of his house. It is somewhat strange that there is no more direct authority on the question; but the general principle seems to me to be that where a person has possession of house or land, with a manifest intention to exercise control over it and the things which may be upon or in it, then, if something is found on that land, whether by an employee of the owner or by a stranger, the presumption is that the possession of that thing is in the owner of the locus in quo.. andSir David Cairns, ChattelChattel found on landOwnershipPassenger finding gold bracelet on floor of airways passenger loungePassenger handing bracelet to airways employeeWhether passenger or airways having right of possession. Wrongdoers should not benefit from their wrongdoing. are treated like the occupiers of buildings for these rules. He also found a gold bracelet lying on the floor. Someone had accidentally dropped a bundle of banknotes in a public shop. took a different view of Lord Russell of Killowen C.J.s judgment in South Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman[1896]2Q.B. I agree with both Donaldson L.J. Two years later Mr. Holme and Mr. Freeman decided to open the box and found that it contained Canadian $38,000 in notes. On 15th November, 1978, Mr Alan George Parker had a date with fateand perhaps with legal immortality. 152the claimant established a title derived from that of the true owner. Donaldson LJ held that this was a case of "finders keepers". Parker v British Airways Board [1982] QB 1004 Case summary Unless the land owner exercises sufficient control and the finder is a trespasser: Hibbert v McKiernan [1948] 2 KB 142 Case summary Rights Above and Below the Surface of Land 75, of any reliance by Patteson J. upon the fact that the notes were found in what may be described as the public part of the shop. He was not a bailee of the pump and consequently has no claim to possession which can prevail over the special property which the plaintiff has by virtue of his having become a bailee by finding.. No rights are acquired unless (a) the item is abandoned or lost and (b) the finder must take the item under their care and control to gain rights. Pratt C.J. In the case before us, however, the defendant asserts no such right of ownership. 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. 65-4, July 2002. 75, is the closest case on its facts to the present case. The defendants claim has a different basis. The reality is somewhat different. 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. There workmen demolishing a building found money in a safe which was recessed in one of the walls. Moffatt v. Kazana[1969]2Q.B. 75;15Jur. ], Geoffrey Brownfor the plaintiff. He was sitting in their lounge and found a bracelet on . 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. Generally, for the finder to claim the found chattel, he or she needs permission to be on the land. 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. The person vis-a-vis whom he is a trespasser has a better title. Parker v British Airways Board - Established-In the course of employment, employees find on behalf of the employer - exception is things that are wholly incidental or contract Does not matter if they saw the object during employment - did not actually find then Steel & Tube NZ Ltd v Hopkins - finding the steel was while the finder was carrying out their job as an auditor - was during . Silcott v Louisville Trust: a bank owner had better rights to a bond found on the floor in a safety vault department. British Airways Board v. Laker Airways Ltd. and Another. -Parker (finder) won. Ltd.[1970]1W.L.R. Parker v British Airways Board In 1982, the Court of Appeal had its first opportunity to consider a dispute between a possessor of land and a finder. A partnership is intertwined in the treaty. 75, 7778, in square brackets where they differ. ), refd to. 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. 505, andBridges v. Hawkesworth,21L.J.Q.B. He considered that Lord Russell of Killowen C.J. The finder has an obligation to inform the true owner that the item has been found and where it is by whatever means are reasonable in the circumstances. Perhaps Mr Parker's flight had just been called and he was pressed for time. The jeweller could only have succeeded if the fact of finding and taking control of the jewel conferred no rights upon the boy. In a dispute of this nature there are two quite separate problems. A similar result was effected inHibbert v. McKiernan[1948]2K.B. But there is. The notes never were in the custody of the defendant, nor within the protection of his house, before they were found, as they would have been had they been intentionally deposited there; and the defendant has come under no responsibility, except from the communication made to him by the plaintiff, the finder, and the steps taken by way of advertisement. Grafstein v. Holme and Freeman(1958)12D.L.R. At the other extreme is the park to which the public has unrestricted access during daylight hours. Mr Parker discovered what had happened and was more than a little annoyed. This again is not a finding case. 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. And that is not all he found. 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. 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. 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. 791. InGrafstein v. Holme and Freeman(1958)12D.L.R. Pratt C.J.s ruling is, however, only a general proposition which requires definition. We were referred, in the course of the argument, to the learned work of Von Savigny, edited by Perry C.J. See alsoBridges v. Hawkesworth(1851)21L.J.Q.B. 75, was emphasised by Lord Russell of Killowen C.J. Furthermore, if a finder is under a duty to take reasonable steps to reunite the true owner with his lost property, this will usually involve an obligation to inform the occupier of the land of the fact that the article has been found and where it is to be kept. Three years later Mr. Bridges asked for the money and offered to indemnify Mr. Hawkesworth in respect of the expenses which he had incurred in advertising for the owner. The plaintiff found them on the floor, they being manifestly lost by some one. 982;[1963]2All E.R. Article. 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". Indeed, it seems that the academics have been debating this problem for years. It is astonishing that there should be any doubt as to who is right. The official handed the bracelet to the lost property department of British Airways. 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. The pump in question appears to have been cached rather than abandoned. -- Download Parker v British Airways Board [1982] 1 QB 1004 as PDF --. British Airways' claim has a different basis. He found himself in the International Executive lounge at Terminal One, Heathrow Airport. 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. 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. 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. The Treaty of Waitangi is New Zealand's founding document representing the Maori community's agreement and the British crown (Wilson, 2015). It is also reflected in the judgment of Lord Goddard C.J. It follows that the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the pump, unless the defendant asserts and proves a title to the pump superior to that of the plaintiff. Mr STEPHEN DESCH, Q.C and Mr ROBERT WEBB (instructed by Messrs Richards, Butler & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Appellants (Defendants). 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). Elwes v. Brigg Gas Co.(1886)33Ch.D. 1079, 1082 but refer to theLaw Journalversion,21L.J. Thereafter matters took what, to the plaintiff, was an unexpected turn. See Bulletin of Proceedings taken in the Supreme Court of Canada at page 2209 . 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.
Tim Pamplin Bio, Articles P