parker v british airways board case

The firmer the control, the less will be the need to demonstrate independently the animus possidendi. There was no evidence that they searched for such articles regularly or at all. Whatever the reason, he gave the bracelet to an anonymous British Airways official instead of to the police. 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. Issue Who has better property rights, the owner of a premise or him? New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench. 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. Perhaps the only officials in sight were employees of British Airways. The fundamental basis of this is clearly public policy. The only possible distinction is that inBridges v. Hawkesworththe notes were apparently found in the part of the shop to which the public had, in practice, unrestricted access, whereas in the instant case there was some degree of control of access to the lounge where the bracelet was found. Finally, there isHannah v. Peel[1945]K.B. 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 all likely circumstances that licence will give the occupier a superior right to that of the finder. Parker V British Airways Board (17 May) Lecture notes which are colour coded University University of Canterbury Course International Law (LAWS101) 39 Documents Helpful? InSouth Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman[1896]2Q.B. 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. The relevant facts, as found, were as follows. 49; 53 W.A.C. Dishonest finders will often be trespassers. We know very little about the plaintiff, and it would be nice to know more. The Court would then have been faced with two claimants, neither of which had any legal right, but one had de facto possession. The general right of the finder to any article which has been lost, as against all the world, except the true owner, was established in Armory v. Delamirie,1Stra. 88;[1953]1W.L.R. Founded over 20 years ago, vLex provides a first-class and comprehensive service for lawyers, law firms, government departments, and law schools around the world. He was lawfully in the lounge and, as events showed, he was an honest man. 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. He sued the defendants in the Brentford County Court and was awarded 850 as damages and 50 as interest. Mr. Hawkesworth advertised for the true owner, but no claimant came forward. That would, however, produce the free-for-all situation to which I have already referred, in that anyone could take the article from the trespassing finder. 75. BROWN (instructed Messrs Edward Isaacs & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Respondent (Plaintiff). 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]. 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. 44, 47, Lord Russell of Killowen C.J. 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. (Bond University), This page was last edited on 12 April 2023, at 12:02. An occupier of land has rights superior to those of a finder over chattels in or attached to that land and an occupier of a building has similar rights in respect of chattels attached to that building, whether in either case the occupier is aware of the presence of the chattel. The contractor similarly was bound to account to the building owner and the building owner, who was the occupier, was contractually bound to account to the corporation. Perhaps Mr Parker's flight had just been called and he was pressed for time. The reality is somewhat different. Some qualification has also to be made in the case of the trespassing finder. [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. 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. In my judgment, that is not a sufficient ground for deciding this dispute in favour of the occupier rather than the finder. Employees finding items in the course of their employment are finding it on behalf of their employer (unless there is agreement otherwise). 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. This lounge is in the middle band and in my judgment, on the evidence available, there was no sufficient manifestation of any intention to exercise control over lost property before it was found such as would give the defendants a right superior to that of the plaintiff or indeed any right over the bracelet. This requirement would be met if the trespassing finder acquired no rights. He found himself in the international executive lounge at terminal one, Heathrow Airport. 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. But that is not the case. On November 15, 1978, the plaintiff, Alan George Parker, had a date with fateand perhaps E with legal immortality. But that is not the case. 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. At first instance, he was successful, and was awarded 850 as damages and 50 as interest. They must and do claim on the basis that they had rights in relation to the bracelet immediatelybeforethe plaintiff found it and that these rights are superior to the plaintiffs. Against all but the true owner a person in possession has the right to possess. At all material times the defendants owned and occupied and controlled the executive lounge where the bracelet was found and therefore, they acquired a better title to it than did 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. Parker v British Airways Board A person having a finders rights has an obligation to take such measures as in all the circumstances are reasonable to acquaint the true owner of the finding and present whereabouts of the chattel and to care for it meanwhile. The rule as stated by Pratt C.J. The reality is somewhat different. It is reflected in the judgment of Chitty J. inElwes v. Brigg Gas Co.(1886)33Ch.D. 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. On November 15, 1978, the plaintiff, Alan George Parker, had a date with fate and perhaps with legal immortality. I would be inclined to say that the occupier of a house will almost invariably possess any lost article on the premises. 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?' -Parker (finder) won. The finder of a chattel acquires very limited rights over it if he takes it into his care and control with dishonest intent or in the course of trespassing. It was not a part of the terminal to which the public nor even the passengers had access as of right. 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. He also found a gold bracelet lying on the floor. 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 . However, it is more convenient to consider these dicta hereafter. 1981 nov. 16, eveleigh and donaldson ljj. The funadmental basis of this is clearly public policy. 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. 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. 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. As the true owner has never come forward, it is a case of finders keepers.. In Johnson v. Pickering[1907]2K.B. The committee recommended legislative action but, as is not uncommon, nothing has been done. 548549: The plaintiff, when he took possession of the pump, acquired a special property in it arising out of his relationship to the unknown owner. 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. Parker v British Airways Board [1982] 1 QB 1004 Parties o Parker - P o British Airways Board - D. Facts Plaintiff in exec lounge at Heathrow airport Found a gold bracelet on the floor BA were lessees of the exec lounge BA employees had instructions to hand in articles lost or found Parker handed in bracelet, asking if true owner did not claim it, for it to be returned . The rule as stated by Pratt C.J. AVX Ltd. v. EGM Solders Ltd., THE TIMES, July 7, 1982 (Q.B. 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. There is a broad distinction between this case and those cited from [Blackstones Commentaries]. But despite the plaintiffs requests for its return to him, the defendants sold it on June 17, 1979. In his submission the law should confer rights upon the occupier of the land where a lost chattel was found which were superior to those of the finder, since the loser is more likely to make inquiries at the place of loss. 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. It is astonishing that there should be any doubt as to who is right. The bracelet was given to Parker on the basis that the occupier, British Airways, did not display intent to exercise control and Parker was an invitee, not a trespasser. (2d)727andKowal v. Ellis(1977)76D.L.R. Parker v British Airways Board (1982) QB 1004 This is one of two key property law cases in English law, clarifying the myth of finders' keepers where items found on land are concerned. 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. People do not enter at will. Take the present case. Pratt C.J.s ruling is, however, only a general proposition which requires definition. The defendants sold it for 850 and retained the proceeds. andRobert Webbfor the defendants. The issue was whether the money belonged to the estate of the husband or to that of the wife. Trial Division. ], 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. InGrafstein v. Holme and Freeman(1958)12D.L.R. This does not help. 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. Judicial District of Moncton. The official handed the bracelet to the lost property department of British Airways. 505suggests that the general rule is that the finder of a chattel can maintain title against anyone except its true owner. 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. That would, however, produce the free-for-all situation to which I have already referred, in that anyone could take the article from the trespassing finder. 44, 4647, provided that the occupiers intention to exercise control over anything which might be on the premises was manifest. But there is. 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. (In the manner that is reasonable under the circumstances.). That was a criminal case concerning the theft of "lost" golf balls on the private land of a club. Neither Mr Parker nor British Airways lays any claim to the bracelet either as owner of it or as one who derives title from that owner. 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 It was held that the non-occupying owner had no right to the brooch and that therefore the finders claim prevailed. must be right as a general proposition, for otherwise lost property would be subject to a free-for-all in which the physically weakest would go to the wall. 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. The plaintiffs prima facie entitlement to a finders rights was not displaced in favour of an employer or principal. Authority for this view of the law is to be found inSouth Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman[1896]2Q.B. Thereafter matters took what, to Mr Parker, was an unexpected turn. Indeed, it seems that the academics have been debating this problem for years. In Parker v British Airways Board[20] a bracelet was found in an airport lounge. The defendants now appeal. ], Geoffrey Brownfor the plaintiff. It was in this context that we were also referred to the opinion of the Judicial Committee inGlenwood Lumber Co. Ltd. v. Phillips[1904]A.C.405 and in particular to remarks by Lord Davey, at p. 410. 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. In a dispute of this nature there are two quite separate problems. The reality is that the defendant, not even being aware of the existence of the pump, owed no duty with respect to it to its true owner. ACCEPT, "An Essay On Possession In The Common Law", 1888, and for a modern judicial example of its expression, per Eveleigh LJ in, a parking lot were held to be bailees of the contents of a car which was stolen from the lot. The person vis-a-vis whom he is a trespasser has a better title. Parker v British Airways Board [1982] 1 QB 1004 Facts A man finds a gold bracelet in an airport. Furthermore, it was not a finding case, for the logs were never lost. 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? Ltd. v. York Products Pty. must be right as a general proposition, for otherwise lost property would be subject to a free-for-all in which the physically weakest would go to the wall. Essentially, your rights depend on how exclusive the area is, though this is difficult to determine. Hannah v. Peel[1945]K.B. Two years later Mr. Holme and Mr. Freeman decided to open the box and found that it contained Canadian $38,000 in notes. Mr Parker discovered what had happened and was more than a little annoyed. The plaintiff brought an action in the county court. 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. In the present case I have come to the conclusion that there is nothing so special in the place and no other evidence to indicate that the defendants, on whom is the burden of proof, in any way demonstrated that they possessed the intention to exercise exclusive control over lost property or that the permission to enter as a member of the travelling public, albeit having purchased the special privilege of the executive lounge, was upon the terms that the commonly understood maxim finders keepers would not apply. In the instant case, the plaintiff was a passenger with a ticket and, thus, was not a trespasser. 834. Nothing that was done afterwards has altered the state of things; the advertisements inserted [indeed] in the newspaper, referring to the defendant, had the same object; the plaintiff has tendered the expense of those advertisements to the defendant, and offered him an indemnity against any claim to be made by the real owner, and has demanded the notes. Our judgment, therefore, is, that the plaintiff is entitled to these notes as against the defendant; that the judgment of the court below must be reversed, and judgment given for the plaintiff for 50.. South Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman[1896]2Q.B. He also found a gold bracelet lying on the floor. Clearly he had not forgotten the schoolboy maxim "Finders keepers". He sued British Airways in the Brentford County Court and was awarded 850 as damages and 50 as interest. Their claim must, on my view of the law, be based upon a manifest intention to exercise control over the lounge and all things which might be in it. This requirement would be met if the trespassing finder acquired no rights. 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. Pratt C.J's ruling is, however, only a general proposition which requires definition. If a bank manager saw fit to show me round a vault containing safe deposits and I found a gold bracelet on the floor, I should have no doubt that the bank had a better title than I, and the reason is the manifest intention to exercise a very high degree of control. 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. Instead they sold it and kept the proceeds which amounted to 850. 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. 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.. 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. British Airways now appeal.. . inHibbert v. McKiernan[1948]2K.B. Adrift on a sea of troubles: cross-border art loans and the specter of ulterior title. 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. Facts: o A gold bracelet was found lying on the floor in the executive lounge at Heathrow airport. The second Canadian decision is that of the Manitoba Court of Appeal inKowal v. Ellis(1977)76D.L.R. Abstract. It is reflected in the judgment of Chitty J. in, It is also reflected in the judgment of Lord Goddard C.J. The obvious candidate is the occupier of the property upon which the finder was trespassing. 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. It is also reflected in the judgment of Lord Goddard C.J. Parker v British Airways Board Court: English Court of Appeal Persuasive on NZ courts (superior court in UK jurisdiction) Cur adv vult Reserved decision gives higher precedent value Facts BA (D) leased the executive lounge from Airport Parker (P) was a passenger in executive lounge at London Heathrow airport P found gold bracelet lying on the floor P delivered to employee of D P left name . 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. On 15th November, 1978, Mr Alan George Parker had a date with fateand perhaps with legal immortality. He also found a gold bracelet lying on the floor. An occupier who manifests an intention to exercise control over a building and the things which may be upon or in it so as to acquire rights superior to those ot a finder is under an obligation to take such measures as in all the circumstances are reasonable to ensure that lost chattels are found and, upon their being found, whether by him or by a third party, to acquaint the true owner of the finding and to care for the chattels meanwhile. SIR DAVID CAIRNS. 1262;[1970]3All E.R. On November 15, 1978, the plaintiff, Alan George Parker, had a date with fate and perhaps with legal immortality. Embedded and Fixtures: If you find buried treasure on someone else's land, it is theirs. for the defendants, submits thatBridges v. Hawkesworth, 15Jur. Mr. Hawkesworth refused to pay over the money and Mr. Bridges sued for it. Article. A passenger found a gold bracelet on the floor of an executive lounge at Heathrow airport. In doing so, we should draw from the experience of the past as revealed by the previous decisions of the Courts. Subscribers are able to see the list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found. The defendants employees had instructions governing the action to be taken when they found lost articles or lost articles were handed to them. They are not members of a large public group, even a restricted group of the public, as users of the executive lounge may be. 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. 562, 568, Hibbert v. McKiernan[1948]2K.B. 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. 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. The Court of Appeal found in favour of the passenger although it was difficult to see how British Airways could have further acted to satisfy a test that required "exercise of manifest control". Parker v. British Airways Board (1982) Facts: The plaintiff was a patron of British Airways (defendant). Neither Mr Parker nor British Airways lays any claim to the bracelet either as owner of it or as one who derives title from that owner. 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. 75, is the closest case on its facts to the present case. 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). Parker v British Airways Board (1981) "Some qualification has also to be made in the case of the trespassing finder. But, equally clearly, he was well aware of the adult qualification "unless the true owner claims the article". Natalie says: " I choose Parker as my favourite case for three reasons. delivered the first judgment. But under the rules of English jurisprudence, none of their decisions binds this court. If all that was wrong then that case was wrongly decided. Parker v British Airways Board -Test for Finder v Occupier of Land:Obiter But under the rules of English jurisprudence, none of their decisions binds this Court. 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. indicated that in his view a claim by Mr. Grafstein based upon that relationship might well have failed. 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. InMoffatt v. Kazana[1969]2Q.B. The Treaty of Waitangi is New Zealand's founding document representing the Maori community's agreement and the British crown (Wilson, 2015). This seems to be the law in Ontario, Canada: Bird v. Fort Frances[1949]2D.L.R. The rights of the parties thus depend upon the common law. The Court would then have been faced with two claimants, neither of which had any legal right, but one had de. The bracelet was lying loose on the floor. said, at pp. Stephen Desch Q.C. 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.
Glendale Memorial Hospital Volunteer, Articles P