parker v british airways board case
Stewart Parker and Susan Parker (plaintiffs) v. Alfred W. Parker and Bessie Parker (defendants) (M/C/1481/88) Indexed As: Parker v. Parker. 44from that of McNair J. inCity of London Corporation v. Appleyard[1963]1W.L.R. SIR DAVID CAIRNS. The defendants employees had instructions governing the action to be taken when they found lost articles or lost articles were handed to them. Mr Parker discovered what had happened and was more than a little annoyed. But that is not the case. But there the present problem did not arise because the occupier of the premises was not party to the proceedings. 44andHannah v. Peel[1945]K.B. Parker v British Airways Board [1982] 2 WLR 503 Finder has limited rights if he takes care and control with dishonest intent or trespassing exclusion of the actual finder occupier has superior rights over finder Steel & Tube NZ Ltd v Hopkins HC Wellington CP20/93, 28 June 1993 The true Owner, and anyone with a prior right to keep the item that existed when the finder took it into their care have better rights to the item. Employees finding items in the course of their employment are finding it on behalf of their employer (unless there is agreement otherwise). and, so far as is material, was in the following terms, at pp. Whatever the reason, he gave the bracelet to an anonymous British Airways official instead of to the police. This requirement would be met if the trespassing finder acquired no rights. 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. Mark Pawlowski looks at the case law on the ownership of objects found on or in land 'Where an object is found attached to realty (ie, land or buildings), the finder (who is not a . Counsel: . Some qualification has also to be made in the case of the trespassing finder. The plaintiff was in the lounge as a passenger waiting for his flight when he found a gold bracelet lying on the floor. 1981 - Studocu CASE MATERIAL 1004 or parker british airways board no. We know very little about the plaintiff, and it would be nice to know more. But, equally clearly, he was well aware of the adult qualification "unless the true owner claims the article". For my part, I can find no trace in the report ofBridges v. Hawkesworth,21L.J.Q.B. As to thieves and trespassers (in the sense of trespassers to the place where the thing was found) I express no concluded opinion, since the plaintiff was not in either of those categories. 509;[1945]2All E.R. 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. Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2021. (Note: Reasonable steps), The occupier has better rights than the finder to the things embedded in or attached to land. DONALDSON L.J. [1953]Ch. Hannah v. Peel[1945]K.B. In the interests of clearing the ground and identifying the problem, let me now turn to another situation in respect of which the law is reasonably clear. 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. indicated that in his view a claim by Mr. Grafstein based upon that relationship might well have failed. The decision is sufficiently important, and the judgment sufficiently short and difficult to find, for me to feel justified in reproducing it in full. But this control has no real relevance to a manifest intention to assert custody and control over lost articles. "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". 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.. Thus,In re Cohen, decd. LORD JUSTICE EVELEIGH,LORD JUSTICE DONALDSON,SIR DAVID CAIRNS, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law Vol. I agree with both Donaldson L.J. 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. Indeed, it seems that the academics have been debating this problem for years. 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. Case: Parker v British Airways Board [1982] QB 1004. Unless otherwise agreed, any servant or agent who finds a chattel in the course of his employment or agency and not wholly incidentally or collaterally thereto and who takes it into his care and control does so on behalf of his employer or principal who acquires a finders rights to the exclusion of those of the actual finder. Parker v British Airways Board (1982) 1 QB 1004--> o This case attempted to clarify and make clear the cases which came before it for finding of an object on the land. Judicial District of Moncton. [1953]Ch. 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. ORGS 3836 - case analysis worksheet (answer the phone) Strategic Management Case Study Final Exam; Grade 12 Chemistry Exam Review 2019; Seminar assignments - assignment 2 solutions; . The following judgments were read. 562. This makes it essential that the elements of possession should be apparent. One of the great merits of the common law is that it is usually sufficiently flexible to take account of the changing needs of a continually changing society. 142, 149, Glenwood Lumber Co. Ltd. v. Phillips[1904]A.C.405, South Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman[1896]2Q.B. University of Greenwich | Property Law Journal | March 2020 #379. 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. Furthermore, it was not a finding case, for the logs were never lost. 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. 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. 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. Ltd.[1970]1W.L.R. Parker v. British Airways Board, [1982] 1 All E.R. 562, 568, Hibbert v. McKiernan[1948]2K.B. Pratt C.J. I therefore would dismiss this appeal. He also found a gold bracelet lying on the floor. 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. 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. InHannah v. Peel[1945]K.B. 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. The rule as stated by Pratt C.J. 44, 47: where a person has possession of house or land, with a manifest intention to exercise control over it and the things which may beupon or init, then, if something is foundonthat land, whether by an employee of the owner or by a stranger, the presumption is that the possession of that thing is in theownerof the locus in quo. (My emphasis). I agree that this appeal should be dismissed. Who has better property rights, the owner of a premise or him? 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. Against all but the true owner a person in possession has the right to possess. He commented,12D.L.R. 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 defendants claim has a different basis. "Occupiers" of vehicles like boats, cars, airplanes, etc. 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. delivered the first judgment. 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 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. 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. Accordingly, the common law has been obliged to give rights to someone else, the owner ex hypothesi being unknown. Likewise the occupier has superior rights to things attached to a building, even if they did not know it was there. That case is irrelevant to a situation where the occupier restricts access of members of the public to the premises as in the instant case. 88 concerned money hidden in a flat formerly occupied by a husband and wife who had died. InIn re Cohen, decd. This is that of chattels which are attached to realty (land or buildings) when they are found. There workmen demolishing a building found money in a safe which was recessed in one of the walls. 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. We were referred, in the course of the argument, to the learned work of Von Savigny, edited by Perry C.J. Instead they sold it and kept the proceeds which amounted to 850. andRobert Webbfor the defendants. He also found a gold bracelet lying on the floor. The finder of a chattel acquires no rights over it unless (a) it has been abandoned or lost and (b) he takes it into his care and control. A passenger named Parker found a gold bracelet on the floor of an executive lounge at Heathrow airport. He could, and I think would, have said that if the notes had been accidentally dropped in theprivatepart unbeknownst to Mr. Hawkesworth and had later been accidentally kicked into the street, Mr. Hawkesworth would have had no duty to the true owner and no rights superior to that of the finder. I am in full agreement with the analysis of the authorities which Donaldson L.J. Bridges v. Hawkesworth(1851)21L.J.Q.B. 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. 378. Although the owner never claimed the bracelet, the defendants did not return it to the plaintiff. Mitchell v. Ealing London Borough Council[1979]Q.B. Parker v. British Airways Board (1982) Facts: The plaintiff was a patron of British Airways (defendant). (2d)727. The manifestation of intention may be express or implied from the circumstances including, in particular, the circumstance that the occupier manifestly accepts or is obliged by law to accept liability for chattels lost upon his premises, e.g. 834. This requirement would be met if the trespassing finder acquired no rights." OBITER DICTUM I propose to confront those two problems separately. (Note: Examples of exercising control), If an occupier has manifested an intention to control they must maintain a Lost and Found facility. A bracelet was found by a passenger named Parker in an executive lounge, which a section of the public had the right to access based on their ticket class. 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. See 32 B.C.A.C. The relationship was one of bailment and, like any other bailee, the plaintiff has become entitled to sue in trover or, as here, in detinue anyone who has interfered with his right of possession, save only the true owner or someone claiming through or on behalf of the true owner. It held that Mr. Grafstein had a superior claim because he took possession and control of the box and of its unknown contents when its existence was first brought to his attention. The rights of the parties thus depend upon the common law. 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. 3 See alsoHibbert v. McKiernan[1948]2K.B. 982;[1963]2All E.R. When British Airways instead sold the bracelet, Parker sued. 825,P.C. As the true owner has never come forward, it is a case of finders keepers.. 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. The rule as stated by Pratt C.J. Board. ThoughBridges v. Hawkesworthhas been the subject of much academic discussion, it has been either applied or distinguished in all the reported cases of disputes between finders and occupiers for 130 years and I consider that it should be followed on this occasion unless it can properly be distinguished. 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. This is not to say that we start with a clean sheet. The conflicting rights of finder and occupier have indeed been considered by various Courts in the past. 142andGlenwood Lumber Co. Ltd. v. Phillips[1904]A.C.405. So this is a case where the defendant does not even assert that he is the owner of the chattel in question; that being so, the defendant can succeed only by showing that he himself was in possession of the pump at the time of the finding in such a way that he, the defendant, had already constituted himself a bailee for the true owner. 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 . 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. Dishonest finders will often be trespassers. Whatever else may be in doubt, the committee was abundantly right in this conclusion. He also found a gold bracelet lying on the floor. Sold house to Kazana forgetting about the money. 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. Perhaps Mr Parker's flight had just been called and he was pressed for time. Perhaps the only officials in sight were employees of British Airways. In so doing, I take the text of the report in the Jurist,15Jur. Curiously enough, it is difficult to find any case in which the rule is stated in this simple form, but I have no doubt that this is the law. Mr G.C. The fundamental basis of this is clearly public policy. intended to extend the statement of principle inPollock and Wright,Possession in the Common Lawto include things upon land or in a house. 75andSouth Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman[1896]2Q.B. Paul S. Creaghan, J. September 1, 1989. He found himself in the international executive lounge at terminal one, Heathrow Airport. declaring "Finders keepers, unless the true owner claims the 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". 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. But there is. 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. & S.566. The 1982 English Court of Appeal case Parker v British Airways Board expanded the phrase, with the judgement of Donaldson L.J. Parker v British Airways Board The owner of the notes was not found, and the finder then sought to recover them from the shopkeeper. Mr. Hawkesworth undoubtedly had a right to exercise such control, but his defence failed. He considered that Lord Russell of Killowen C.J. 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. The plaintiff found them on the floor, they being manifestly lost by some one. 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. Embedded and Fixtures: If you find buried treasure on someone else's land, it is theirs. 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 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). I can understand his annoyance. He found himself in the international executive lounge at terminal one, Heathrow Airport. 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. 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 . 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.