Report file for Parker v. British Airways Board [1982] QB 1004

The result of processing this SHYSTER output using the LaTeX document processor is available as an Acrobat PDF file. An HTML version of the LaTeX output is available. Other example SHYSTER output is also available.

PDF PDF files can be read and printed using Adobe's free Acrobat Reader.   Get Adobe Acrobat Reader

% Report file

% Produced by SHYSTER version 1.0

% Copyright James Popple 1993

% This is a stand-alone LaTeX file.
% Use LaTeX version 2.09 <25 March 1992> and TeX version 3.141.

\documentstyle[12pt]{article}
\oddsidemargin=-5.4mm
\evensidemargin=-5.4mm
\topmargin=-5.4mm
\headheight=0mm
\headsep=0mm
\textheight=247mm
\textwidth=170mm
\footskip=15mm
\pagestyle{plain}

\begin{document}

\subsection*{Finder area}

\subsubsection*{Instant case}

In the instant case,
    the finder was not the occupier of the premises where the
      chattel was found;
    the chattel was not attached;
    the other claimant was not the owner of the premises where
      the chattel was found;
    the other claimant was not the true owner of the chattel and
      was not claiming through the rights of the true owner;
    the finder handed over the chattel to the other claimant
      after the finding;
    neither party relied on the terms of an agreement regarding
      the right to the chattel;
    the finder was not a servant of the other claimant;
    the chattel was not hidden and was not in a position so as
      to be difficult to find;
    an attempt was made to find the true owner of the chattel
      or, alternatively, the chattel was clearly abandoned; and
    neither party knew of the existence of the chattel prior to
      the finding.

\medskip\noindent In my opinion---following \frenchspacing
{\it Bridges v. Hawkesworth\/}\nonfrenchspacing---%
the finder wins.

\medskip\noindent In \frenchspacing
{\it Bridges v. Hawkesworth}\nonfrenchspacing,%
\footnote{(1851) 21 LJQB 75.}
    an 1851 decision of
      the Queen's Bench Division of the English High Court,
    the plaintiff found a bundle of banknotes on the floor of
      the public area of a shop. He handed the notes to the
      shopkeeper in order that the true owner of the notes might
      be found. Although the owner was never found, the
      shopkeeper refused to return the notes to the finder. The
      Court found for the finder, holding that there is a
      ``general right of [a] finder to any article which has
      been lost as against all the world except the true
      owner''.\footnote{ibid.\ at~77 per Patteson~J.} It was
      further noted that the notes had never been in the custody
      of the shopkeeper nor within the protection of his house
      as might be the case had they intentionally been deposited
      there.

There are several significant similarities
between the instant case and \frenchspacing
{\it Bridges v. Hawkesworth\/}\null\nonfrenchspacing:
    the finder was not the occupier of the premises where the
      chattel was found;
    the chattel was not attached;
    the other claimant was not the true owner of the chattel and
      was not claiming through the rights of the true owner;
    the finder handed over the chattel to the other claimant
      after the finding;
    neither party relied on the terms of an agreement regarding
      the right to the chattel;
    the finder was not a servant of the other claimant;
    the chattel was not hidden and was not in a position so as
      to be difficult to find;
    an attempt was made to find the true owner of the chattel
      or, alternatively, the chattel was clearly abandoned; and
    neither party knew of the existence of the chattel prior to
      the finding.

However, the instant case is not on all fours with \frenchspacing
{\it Bridges v. Hawkesworth}\null\nonfrenchspacing.
In that case
    the other claimant was the owner of the premises where the
      chattel was found.

Nevertheless, I believe that \frenchspacing
{\it Bridges v. Hawkesworth\/} \nonfrenchspacing
should be followed.

\medskip\noindent If \frenchspacing
{\it City of London Corporation v. Appleyard (1)\/} \nonfrenchspacing
is followed then the finder loses.

\medskip\noindent In \frenchspacing
{\it City of London Corporation v. Appleyard (1)}\nonfrenchspacing,%
\footnote{[1963] 1 WLR 982.}
    a 1963 decision of
      the Queen's Bench Division of the English High Court,
    workmen employed by Wates Ltd were engaged in cutting a
      key-way into a cellar wall for the purposes of securing a
      foundation when they found an old wall-safe built into a
      recess of the old wall. Inside was a wooden box which
      contained a large number of Bank of England notes. The
      notes were handed over to the City of London police who
      sought interpleader proceedings to determine who was
      entitled to the possession of the notes.\par Wates Ltd was
      an independent contractor engaged by Yorkwin Investments
      Ltd for a construction project. Yorkwin was lessee in
      possession of the property which was owned in fee simple
      by the City of London.\par The Court followed the decision
      in \frenchspacing {\it South Staffordshire Water Co. v.
      Sharman\/}\nonfrenchspacing\footnote{[1896] 2 QB 44.} in
      holding that the occupier is, in the absence of a better
      title elsewhere, entitled to the possession of objects
      which are attached to or under the land. Consequently,
      since the notes were in a wooden box within a safe built
      into the wall of the old building, the safe formed part of
      the demised premises. Yorkwin, being in lawful possession
      of the premises, were in {\it de facto\/} possession of
      the safe, even though ignorant of its existence.\par
      Although Yorkwin was entitled to possession as against the
      finders, they in turn were displaced by the City of London
      which relied successfully on a term in the lease which
      granted them the right to certain objects found on the
      premises.

There are several similarities
between the instant case and \frenchspacing
{\it London v. Appleyard (1)\/}\null\nonfrenchspacing:
    the finder was not the occupier of the premises where the
      chattel was found;
    the other claimant was not the owner of the premises where
      the chattel was found;
    the other claimant was not the true owner of the chattel and
      was not claiming through the rights of the true owner;
    neither party relied on the terms of an agreement regarding
      the right to the chattel;
    an attempt was made to find the true owner of the chattel
      or, alternatively, the chattel was clearly abandoned; and
    neither party knew of the existence of the chattel prior to
      the finding.

However, there are several significant differences
between the instant case and \frenchspacing
{\it London v. Appleyard (1)}\null\nonfrenchspacing.
In that case
    the chattel was attached;
    the finder did not hand over the chattel to the other
      claimant after the finding;
    the finder was a servant of the other claimant; and
    the chattel was hidden or was in a position so as to be
      difficult to find.

Despite the fact that \frenchspacing
{\it London v. Appleyard (1)\/} \nonfrenchspacing
and \frenchspacing
{\it Bridges v. Hawkesworth\/} \nonfrenchspacing
are both decisions of
the Queen's Bench Division of the English High Court,
there is nothing in \frenchspacing
{\it London v. Appleyard (1)\/} \nonfrenchspacing
to warrant any change in my conclusion.

\subsubsection*{Hypothetical 1}

Consider the instant case changed so that the following is true:
    the other claimant was the owner of the premises where the
      chattel was found.

\medskip\noindent If that were so then I would be more strongly of the
opinion that---following \frenchspacing
{\it Bridges v. Hawkesworth\/}\nonfrenchspacing---%
the finder wins.

\medskip\noindent Details of \frenchspacing
{\it Bridges v. Hawkesworth\/} \nonfrenchspacing
are summarized above.
The hypothetical case is on all fours with \frenchspacing
{\it Bridges v. Hawkesworth}\null\nonfrenchspacing.

\medskip\noindent If \frenchspacing
{\it City of London Corporation v. Appleyard (2)\/} or
{\it South Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman\/} \nonfrenchspacing
are followed then the finder loses.

\medskip\noindent In \frenchspacing
{\it City of London Corporation v. Appleyard (2)}\nonfrenchspacing,%
\footnote{[1963] 1 WLR 982.}
    a 1963 decision of
      the Queen's Bench Division of the English High Court,
    workmen employed by Wates Ltd were engaged in cutting a
      key-way into a cellar wall for the purposes of securing a
      foundation when they found an old wall-safe built into a
      recess of the old wall. Inside was a wooden box which
      contained a large number of Bank of England notes. The
      notes were handed over to the City of London police who
      sought interpleader proceedings to determine who was
      entitled to the possession of the notes.\par Wates Ltd was
      an independent contractor engaged by Yorkwin Investments
      Ltd for a construction project. Yorkwin was lessee in
      possession of the property which was owned in fee simple
      by the City of London. The Court found that the safe
      formed part of the demised premises and that,
      consequently, Yorkwin was entitled to the notes as against
      the workmen.\par The lease contained a clause which
      purported to grant the rights to ``every relic or article
      of antiquity rarity or value'' to the City of London. The
      sole issue was to determine if the notes fell into that
      description. The Court could find no reason for limiting
      the generality of the words and so found for the City of
      London.

There are several similarities
between the hypothetical case and \frenchspacing
{\it London v. Appleyard (2)\/}\null\nonfrenchspacing:
    the other claimant was the owner of the premises where the
      chattel was found;
    the other claimant was not the true owner of the chattel and
      was not claiming through the rights of the true owner;
    the finder handed over the chattel to the other claimant
      after the finding;
    the finder was not a servant of the other claimant;
    an attempt was made to find the true owner of the chattel
      or, alternatively, the chattel was clearly abandoned; and
    neither party knew of the existence of the chattel prior to
      the finding.

However, there are several significant differences
between the hypothetical case and \frenchspacing
{\it London v. Appleyard (2)}\null\nonfrenchspacing.
In that case
    the finder was the occupier of the premises where the
      chattel was found;
    the chattel was attached;
    one of the parties relied on the terms of an agreement made
      with the other which purported to give her/him the right
      to the chattel; and
    the chattel was hidden or was in a position so as to be
      difficult to find.

Despite the fact that \frenchspacing
{\it London v. Appleyard (2)\/} \nonfrenchspacing
and \frenchspacing
{\it Bridges v. Hawkesworth\/} \nonfrenchspacing
are both decisions of
the Queen's Bench Division of the English High Court,
there is nothing in \frenchspacing
{\it London v. Appleyard (2)\/} \nonfrenchspacing
to warrant any change in my conclusion.

\medskip\noindent In 1896,
the Queen's Bench Division of the English High Court
also decided \frenchspacing
{\it South Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman}\null\nonfrenchspacing.%
\footnote{[1896] 2 QB 44.}
(Note, however, that \frenchspacing
{\it London v. Appleyard (2)\/} \nonfrenchspacing
is 67 years more recent than \frenchspacing
{\it South Staffordshire v. Sharman}\null\nonfrenchspacing.)

In \frenchspacing
{\it South Staffordshire v. Sharman}\nonfrenchspacing,
    the defendant was a workman employed by the plaintiff to
      clean out a pool located on land owned by the plaintiff.
      During the operation the defendant found two gold rings
      embedded in the mud at the bottom of the pool. Although
      the plaintiff demanded the rings, the defendant refused to
      give them up. He placed them in the hands of police
      authorities who unsuccessfully endeavoured to find the
      owners of the rings. The police returned the rings to the
      defendant who was then sued in detinue for the recovery of
      the rings.\par It was proved at the trial that there was
      no special contract between the parties which called upon
      the defendant to give up any articles which might be
      found.\par Although the county court held in favour of the
      defendant on the basis of \frenchspacing{\it Bridges v.
      Hawkesworth}\nonfrenchspacing,\footnote{(1851) 21 LJQB
      75.} the appeal found for the plaintiff on the basis that
      they had, as owners of the land and pool, the right to
      exercise control over the same. \frenchspacing {\it
      Bridges v. Hawkesworth\/} \nonfrenchspacing was
      distinguished on the grounds that the notes in that case
      were in a public part of the shop and the shopkeeper did
      not in any sense control them.\par The Court stated a
      general principle: where a person has possession of a
      house or land with a manifest intention to exercise
      control over it and the things which may be upon or in it,
      then there is a presumption that things found there are in
      the possession of the owner.

There are several similarities
between the hypothetical case and \frenchspacing
{\it South Staffordshire v. Sharman\/}\null\nonfrenchspacing:
    the finder was not the occupier of the premises where the
      chattel was found;
    the other claimant was the owner of the premises where the
      chattel was found;
    the other claimant was not the true owner of the chattel and
      was not claiming through the rights of the true owner;
    neither party relied on the terms of an agreement regarding
      the right to the chattel;
    an attempt was made to find the true owner of the chattel
      or, alternatively, the chattel was clearly abandoned; and
    neither party knew of the existence of the chattel prior to
      the finding.

However, there are several significant differences
between the hypothetical case and \frenchspacing
{\it South Staffordshire v. Sharman}\null\nonfrenchspacing.
In that case
    the chattel was attached;
    the finder did not hand over the chattel to the other
      claimant after the finding;
    the finder was a servant of the other claimant; and
    the chattel was hidden or was in a position so as to be
      difficult to find.

Despite the fact that \frenchspacing
{\it South Staffordshire v. Sharman\/} \nonfrenchspacing
and \frenchspacing
{\it Bridges v. Hawkesworth\/} \nonfrenchspacing
are both decisions of
the Queen's Bench Division of the English High Court,
there is nothing in \frenchspacing
{\it South Staffordshire v. Sharman\/} \nonfrenchspacing
to warrant any change in my conclusion.

\subsubsection*{Hypothetical 2}

Consider the instant case changed so that the following is true:
    the finder was a servant of the other claimant; and
    the chattel was hidden or was in a position so as to be
      difficult to find.

\medskip\noindent If that were so then my opinion would be
that---following \frenchspacing
{\it City of London Corporation v. Appleyard (1)\/}\nonfrenchspacing---%
the finder loses.

\medskip\noindent Details of \frenchspacing
{\it London v. Appleyard (1)\/} \nonfrenchspacing
are summarized above.
There are several significant similarities
between the hypothetical case and \frenchspacing
{\it London v. Appleyard (1)\/}\null\nonfrenchspacing:
    the finder was not the occupier of the premises where the
      chattel was found;
    the other claimant was not the owner of the premises where
      the chattel was found;
    the other claimant was not the true owner of the chattel and
      was not claiming through the rights of the true owner;
    neither party relied on the terms of an agreement regarding
      the right to the chattel;
    the finder was a servant of the other claimant;
    the chattel was hidden or was in a position so as to be
      difficult to find;
    an attempt was made to find the true owner of the chattel
      or, alternatively, the chattel was clearly abandoned; and
    neither party knew of the existence of the chattel prior to
      the finding.

However, the hypothetical case is not on all fours with \frenchspacing
{\it London v. Appleyard (1)}\null\nonfrenchspacing.
In that case
    the chattel was attached; and
    the finder did not hand over the chattel to the other
      claimant after the finding.

Nevertheless, I believe that \frenchspacing
{\it London v. Appleyard (1)\/} \nonfrenchspacing
should be followed.

\medskip\noindent If \frenchspacing
{\it Hannah v. Peel\/} \nonfrenchspacing
is followed then the finder wins.

\medskip\noindent In \frenchspacing
{\it Hannah v. Peel}\nonfrenchspacing,%
\footnote{[1945] KB 509.}
    a 1945 decision of
      the King's Bench Division of the English High Court,
    a brooch was found by the plaintiff who was a lance-corporal
      stationed in a house owned by the defendant. The house had
      been requisitioned by the army during the war and had
      never been occupied by the defendant.\par The plaintiff
      was adjusting the black-out curtains when he touched
      something on the top of the window-frame. He thought the
      object to be a piece of dirt or plaster and he dropped it
      on the outside window ledge. On the following morning, he
      saw that it was a brooch and, on the advice of his
      commanding officer, turned it over to the police for the
      purpose of finding the owner. In the following year, the
      police returned the brooch to the defendant who sold it to
      a jeweller. The plaintiff at all times maintained his
      rights to the brooch against all persons other than the
      true owner.\par The Court found for the plaintiff on the
      basis of \frenchspacing{\it Bridges v.
      Hawkesworth\/}\nonfrenchspacing\footnote{(1851) 21 LJQB
      75.} after a thorough review of the authorities. The Court
      further noted that the defendant was never in possession
      of the premises, that the brooch was never his, and that
      he had no knowledge of it until it was brought to his
      notice by the finder.

There are several similarities
between the hypothetical case and \frenchspacing
{\it Hannah v. Peel\/}\null\nonfrenchspacing:
    the finder was not the occupier of the premises where the
      chattel was found;
    the chattel was not attached;
    the other claimant was not the true owner of the chattel and
      was not claiming through the rights of the true owner;
    neither party relied on the terms of an agreement regarding
      the right to the chattel;
    the chattel was hidden or was in a position so as to be
      difficult to find;
    an attempt was made to find the true owner of the chattel
      or, alternatively, the chattel was clearly abandoned; and
    neither party knew of the existence of the chattel prior to
      the finding.

However, there are several significant differences
between the hypothetical case and \frenchspacing
{\it Hannah v. Peel}\null\nonfrenchspacing.
In that case
    the other claimant was the owner of the premises where the
      chattel was found;
    the finder did not hand over the chattel to the other
      claimant after the finding; and
    the finder was not a servant of the other claimant.

Despite the fact that \frenchspacing
{\it Hannah v. Peel\/} \nonfrenchspacing
is a decision of
the King's Bench Division of the English High Court
(and as good authority as a case decided by
the Queen's Bench Division of the English High Court%
---like \frenchspacing
{\it London v. Appleyard (1)\/}\nonfrenchspacing),
there is nothing in \frenchspacing
{\it Hannah v. Peel\/} \nonfrenchspacing
to warrant any change in my conclusion.

\end{document}

Copyright noticeValid HTML 4.0
Home page:  <http://www.popple.net/james/>
E-mail:  <james@popple.net>
Last modified:  30 April 1995