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. But these instructions were not published to users of the lounge and in any event I think that they were intended to do no more than instruct the staff on how they were to act in the course of their employment. The nursing Council of New Zealand (2011) stated that "The expected outcome for nursing education will be that registered nurses will be responsive to improving service delivery to Maori consumers and working . 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. Elwes v. Brigg Gas Co.(1886)33Ch.D. 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]. 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. 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. Finders keepers Parker v British Airways Board [1982] 1 QB 1004 (CA) FACTS OF THE CASE The defendant airways occupied, as lessees, the international executive lounge at an airways terminal and permitted passengers of specific classes to use it. 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. Stephen Desch Q.C. The plaintiffs prima facie entitlement to a finders rights was not displaced in favour of an employer or principal. 142, 149, Glenwood Lumber Co. Ltd. v. Phillips[1904]A.C.405, South Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman[1896]2Q.B. Thereafter matters took what, to Mr Parker, was an unexpected turn. 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. He found himself in the International Executive lounge at Terminal One, Heathrow Airport. The official handed the bracelet to the lost property department of British Airways. See alsoBridges v. Hawkesworth(1851)21L.J.Q.B. When British Airways instead sold the bracelet, Parker sued. The Court would then have been faced with two claimants, neither of which had any legal right, but one had de. Pratt C.J. Subscribers can access the reported version of this case. 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. On November 15, 1978, while the plaintiff, Alan George Parker, was waiting as a passenger in the executive lounge at terminal one of London Heathrow Airport he found a gentlemans gold bracelet lying on the floor. 1. And that was not all that he found. 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. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. The money had been hidden and not lost and this was not a finding case at all. Parker v British Airways Board -Test for Finder v Occupier of Land OUTCOME The restricted access to the lounge showed intent to control the room but was insufficient to show intent to control things IN the room. Get access. During those hours there is no manifest intention to exercise any such control. 1079. It is accepted on both sides that for the defendants to succeed it must be shown that they had possession of the bracelet at the time when the plaintiff found it and took it into his possession. I see the force of this submission. Some qualification has also to be made in the case of the trespassing finder. 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. Although the owner never claimed the bracelet, British Airways did not return it to Mr Parker. Parker v British Airways Board - Case Law - VLEX 793501241 But that is not the case. 860,D.C. Kowal v. Ellis(1977)76D.L.R. The firmer the control, the less will be the need to demonstrate independently the animus possidendi. 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. 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. The conflicting rights of finder and occupier have indeed been considered by various Courts in the past. The facts do not warrant the supposition that they had been deposited there intentionally, nor has the case been put at all upon that ground. Dishonest finders will often be trespassers. 505, andBridges v. Hawkesworth,21L.J.Q.B. 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 . University of Greenwich | Property Law Journal | March 2020 #379. 88;[1953]1W.L.R. 779. Bridges v. Hawkesworth(1851)21L.J.Q.B. 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. 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. Parker v British Airways Board land University University of Birmingham Module Land Law (08 21215) 384 Documents Academic year:2019/2020 Listed bookLand Law Uploaded bylex brar Helpful? British Airways Board, [1982] QB 1004, whereby Parker discovered a bracelet on the floor of the British Airways executive lounge, submitted it to the B.A. 35 (1851) 21 LJQB 75. 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. 142;[1948]1All E.R. The workmen claimed as finders, but it is clear law that a servant or agent who finds in the course of his employment or agency is obliged to account to his employer or principal. 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 41. On 15th November, 1978, Mr Alan George Parker had a date with fateand perhaps with legal immortality. 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. If all that was wrong then that case was wrongly decided. 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. 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. 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 . The plaintiff was driving across the defendants land when he saw an abandoned pump on that land. Accordingly, the common law has been obliged to give rights to someone else, the owner exhypothesi being unknown. He has the key to the front door. Trial Division. 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. -Parker (finder) won. By a notice of appeal dated November 20, 1980, the defendants appealed on the grounds, inter alia, that the judge erred in law in holding1006that the plaintiff had a better title than did the defendants to the bracelet, and in rejecting the submissions put forward by the defendants, namely, (1) where an occupier of premises had de facto control and he intended to actively possess or prevent others (other than the true owner) from possessing chattels, which might be lost on premises, then he acquired a better title to those chattels than the finder; (2) the plaintiff was not a true finder because at the time of the loss the occupier possessed the chattels as against the then unascertained owner. Thus,In re Cohen, decd. Hibbert v. McKiernan[1948]2K.B. 999;[1978]2All E.R. 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 Ltd. v. York Products Pty. 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. 75andSouth Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman[1896]2Q.B. He may not have taken any positive steps to demonstrate his animus possidendi, but so firm is his control that the animus can be seen to attach to it. The county court judge dismissed his claim and he appealed. and, so far as is material, was in the following terms, at pp. took a different view of Lord Russell of Killowen C.J.s judgment in South Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman[1896]2Q.B. 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. 982. Thus far the story is unremarkable. The second, which is often the more troublesome, is to apply those principles or rules to the factual situation. The finder only acquires any rights against the world as a whole. Embedded and Fixtures: If you find buried treasure on someone else's land, it is theirs. in Hibbert v. Mckiernan, (1948) 2 K.B. On 15th November, 1978, Mr Alan George Parker had a date with fateand perhaps with legal immortality. However, he probably has some title, albeit a frail one because of the need to avoid a free-for-all. In doing so, we should draw from the experience of the past as revealed by the previous decisions of the courts. But there is. delivered the first judgment. The bracelet was never claimed. 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. ], Geoffrey Brownfor the plaintiff. The relevant facts, as found, were as follows. Parker v British Airways Board -Test for Finder v Occupier of Land:Obiter 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. He also found a gold bracelet lying on the floor. 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 lease from the corporation to the building owners preserved the corporations right to any article of value found upon any remains of former buildings and the workmen were employed by contractors working for the building owners. He sued British Airways in the Brentford County Court and was awarded 850 as damages and 50 as interest. Some qualification has also to be made in the case of the trespassing finder. 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". 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 shop was open to the public, and they were invited to come there.. The funadmental basis of this is clearly public policy. 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. The obvious candidate is the occupier of the property upon which the finder was trespassing.