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.
% 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}