Wrongdoers should not benefit from their wrongdoing. Whatever else may be in doubt, the Committee was abundantly right in this conclusion. Mr Parker, the British Airways official and British Airways itself had all acted as one would have hoped and expected them to act. 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. 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. Against all but the true owner a person in possession has the right to possess. It is reflected in the judgment of Chitty J. in Elwes v. Brigg Gas Co., (1886) 33 Ch. 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. British Airways now appeal. [Reference was made toGilchrist Watt and Sanderson Pty. The rule as stated by Pratt C.J. One could not infer any special conditions of entry. Five Property Law Cases You Should Know About - The Lawyer Portal There is no evidence that he was in the executive lounge in the course of any employment or agency and, if he was, the finding of the bracelet was quite clearly collateral thereto. The bracelet was never claimed. There was no sufficient manifestation of any intention of the defendant to exercise control over lost property before it was found which would otherwise give the defendants a right superior to that of the plaintiff or indeed any right over the bracelet.[1]. We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. This does not help. 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. And that was not all that he found. Clearly he had not forgotten the schoolboy maxim "Finders keepers". Accordingly, the common law has been obliged to give rights to someone else, the owner ex hypothesi being unknown. 509the occupier was not in physical possession of the premises. British Airways Board v . Laker Airways Ltd. and Another - Cambridge Core He found himself in the international executive lounge at terminal one, Heathrow Airport. They must and do claim on the basis that they had rights in relation to the bracelet. (Note: Embedded and Fixtures), With regard to items in (or on top of) the building: The occupier has better rights only if they have manifested an intention to exercise control over the building and the things in it. Solicitors:Richards, Butler & Co.; Edward Isaacs & Co. 1/120 Bluestone Circuit Seventeen Mile Rocks QLD 4073, Grafstein v. Holme and Freeman(1958)12D.L.R. This requirement would be met if the trespassing finder acquired no rights." OBITER DICTUM 3 44and see alsoCity of London Corporation v. Appleyard[1963]1W.L.R. inHibbert v. McKiernan[1948]2K.B. The plaintiff, the defendants official and the defendants themselves had all acted as one would have hoped and expected them to act. British Airways Board v. Laker Airways Ltd. and Another. People do not enter at will. If at all, it must have been antecedent to the finding by the plaintiff, for that finding could not give the defendant any right. This makes it essential that the elements of possession should be apparent. 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. The firmer the control, the less will be the need to demonstrate independently the animus possidendi. 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. 44, 47, Lord Russell of Killowen C.J. Clearly he had not forgotten the schoolboy maxim "Finders keepers". Land Law Case notes part 1 - Land Law Case notes Parker v British 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.. But this control has no real relevance to a manifest intention to assert custody and control over lost articles. Mr. Holme found a locked box in premises which Mr. Grafstein had acquired as an extension to his store. The first is to determine the general principles or rules of law which are applicable. There could be a number of reasons. 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. Furthermore, it was not a finding case, for the logs were never lost. Indeed, it seems that the academics have been debating this problem for years. Parker v British Airways Board [1982] Q.B. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the cited cases and legislation of a document. However, he probably has some title, albeit a frail one because of the need to avoid a free-for-all. Parker v British Airways Board [1982] 1 QB 1004 - Law Case Summaries The obvious candidate is the occupier of the property upon which the finder was trespassing. 1;[1978]2W.L.R. Parker v British Airways Board [1982] 1 QB 1004. are treated like the occupiers of buildings for these rules. It was well asked, on the argument, if the defendant has the right,whendid it accrue to him? Evidence was given of staff instructions which govern the action to be taken by employees of the defendants if they found lost articles or lost chattels were handed to them. The conflicting rights of finder and occupier have indeed been considered by various Courts in the past. The funadmental basis of this is clearly public policy. 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. On 15th November, 1978, Mr Alan George Parker had a date with fateand perhaps with legal immortality. 41. 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. 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.
