509. Parker v British Airways Board (1981) "Some qualification has also to be made in the case of the trespassing finder. 65-4, July 2002. This is not to say that we start with a clean sheet. 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. 834 (C.A. British Airways' claim has a different basis. He in fact discharged those obligations by handing the bracelet to an official of the defendants although he could equally have done so by handing the bracelet to the police or in other ways such as informing the police of the find and himself caring for the bracelet. He was lawfully in the lounge and, as events showed, he was an honest man. They come by very special invitation. The first is to determine the general principles or rules of law which are applicable. Parker v. British Airways Board (1982) Facts: The plaintiff was a patron of British Airways (defendant). 1262, Mitchell v. Ealing London Borough Council, Elwes v. Brigg Gas Co.(1886)33Ch.D. And it makes no difference that the possessor is not aware of the things existence It is free to anyone who requires a specific intention as part of a de facto possession to treat this as a positive rule of law. The Committee recommended legislative action but, as is not uncommon, nothing has been done. Finally, there isHannah v. Peel[1945]K.B. Parker v British Airways Board [1982] 1 QB 1004 FACTS: An airline passenger found a bracelet on the floor of the executive lounge - handed to employee of licensee of premises. He sued British Airways in the Brentford County Court and was awarded 850 as damages and 50 as interest. Parker V British Airways Board (17 May) Lecture notes which are colour coded University University of Canterbury Course International Law (LAWS101) 39 Documents Helpful? It was not a part of the terminal to which the public nor even the passengers had access as of right. Although the owner never claimed the bracelet, British Airways did not return it to Mr Parker. 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. 75;15Jur. 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. It was an appeal from the county court by case stated. This right would clearly have accrued to the plaintiff had the notes been picked up by him outside the shop of the defendant; and if he once had the right, the case finds that he did not intend, by delivering the notes to the defendant, to waive the title (if any) which he had to them, but they were handed to the defendant merely for the purpose of delivering them to the owner, should he appear. AVX Ltd. v. EGM Solders Ltd., THE TIMES, July 7, 1982 (Q.B. (3d)546. Here, the bracelet was lying loose on the floor. Thus far the story is unremarkable. 38 Nbr. Lecture 4- Possession & Personal Property - 7234 - UC - StuDocu I agree with both Donaldson L.J. People do not enter at will. December 21. o Found in the direct course of employment (Parker v British Airways, Steel and Tube v Hopkins) Cases: Moffat v Kazana - Russell family put a tin of money in the roof of their house. In the meantime, they have to take care of the item. He found himself in the international executive lounge at terminal one, Heathrow Airport. We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. 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. in Hibbert v. Mckiernan, (1948) 2 K.B. 437the issue was whether the sheriff on behalf of a judgment creditor had a claim to money which the judgment debtor took to his house at a time when the sheriff had taken walking possession of that house, albeit the sheriff had been unaware of the arrival of the money. 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. 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. In the instant case, the plaintiff was a passenger with a ticket and, thus, was not a trespasser. A passenger named Parker found a gold bracelet on the floor of an executive lounge at Heathrow airport. Elwes v. Brigg Gas Co.(1886)33Ch.D. 44,D.C. Parker v British Airways Board - Studocu He took the bracelet which he found in the lounge into his care and control. If the finder takes it into their care with dishonest intent or in the course of trespassing, then they acquire only limited rights. 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. 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. Who has a better claim, him or the airport? Get access. 5 minutes know interesting legal mattersParker v British Airways Board [1982] QB 1004 CA. It is reflected in the judgment of Chitty J. in, It is also reflected in the judgment of Lord Goddard C.J. There could be a number of reasons. 36. Five Property Law Cases You Should Know About - The Lawyer Portal Parker v British Airways Board - Parker v British Airways - Course Hero LORD JUSTICE EVELEIGH,LORD JUSTICE DONALDSON,SIR DAVID CAIRNS, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law Vol. 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 plaintiffs claim is founded upon the ancient common law rule that the act of finding a chattel which has been lost and taking control of it gives the finder rights with respect to that chattel. 1079, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parker_v_British_Airways_Board&oldid=1149463390. 1981 - Studocu CASE MATERIAL 1004 or parker british airways board no. I also agree that such an intention would probably be manifest in a private house or in a room to which access is very strictly controlled. (Note: Examples of exercising control), If an occupier has manifested an intention to control they must maintain a Lost and Found facility. 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. The issue was whether the money belonged to the estate of the husband or to that of the wife. It is also reflected in the judgment of Lord Goddard C.J. The defendants had no superior title to the bracelet than the plaintiff. and, so far as is material, was in the following terms, at pp. The rule as stated by Pratt C.J. But those instructions were not published to users of the lounge. 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. andRobert Webbfor the defendants. 5 minutes know interesting legal mattersParker v British Airways Board [1982] QB 1004 CA (UK Caselaw) Lord Russell of Killowen C.J. InElwes v. Brigg Gas Co.,33Ch.D. Ltd. v. York Products Pty. The judgement laid out clear rules for both the Finder, and the Occupier of the Premises: This page is not available in other languages. delivered the first judgment. 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". However, I would accept Lord Russell of Killowen C.J.s statement of the general principle inSouth Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman[1896]2Q.B. 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. But there is. He found himself in the international executive lounge at terminal one, Heathrow Airport. Q.B. The rule as stated by Pratt C.J. Parker v. British Airways Board (1982) - Studocu During those hours there is no manifest intention to exercise any such control. 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. They could be the owner, tenant, etc. At the other extreme is the park to which the public has unrestricted access during daylight hours. 49. British Airways now appeal.. . 825,P.C. They would have to show that they manifested an intention to exercise control over the area the 50 was found. (2d)727, Gilchrist Watt and Sanderson Pty. InGrafstein v. Holme and Freeman(1958)12D.L.R. Mr Parker discovered what had happened and was more than a little annoyed. declaring "Finders keepers, unless the true owner claims the article". Judicial District of Moncton. Pratt C.J.s ruling is, however, only a general proposition which requires definition. He was almost certainly an outgoing passenger because the defendants, British Airways Board, 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. Perhaps the only officials in sight were employees of British Airways. In the 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. In this edition of Favourite Cases, Natalie Pratt tells the story of Parker v British Airways Board [1982] QB 1004. If at all, it must have been antecedent to the finding by the plaintiff, for that finding could not give the defendant any right. This case establishes the rights that a person has to a chattel found on the surface of the land. That was a criminal case concerning the theft of "lost" golf balls on the private land of a club. He found himself in the international executive lounge at terminal one, Heathrow Airport. Canada (Attorney General) v. Brock Estate et al., (1993) 32 B.C.A.C. 49 It was in this context that we were also referred to the opinion of the Judicial Committee in. Perhaps Mr Parker's flight had just been called and he was pressed for time. We know very little about Mr Parker, and it would be nice to know more. The occupier was the Crown, which made no claim either as occupier or as employer of the finder. The defendants employees had instructions governing the action to be taken when they found lost articles or lost articles were handed to them. British Airways Board were thus unable to assert superior title over the bracelet.[2]. inSouth Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman[1896]2Q.B. ), refd to. I see the force of this submission. Mr Parker's claim is founded upon the ancient common law rule that the act of finding a chattel which has been lost and taking control of it gives the finder rights with respect to that chattel. 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. 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 conflicting rights of finder and occupier have indeed been considered by various courts in the past. 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. Such a superior title may arise independently of the original owner of the pump if the original owner has dealt with it in such a way as to enable the landowner to assert a claim as owner of the chattel, or it may arise by reason of the landowner having himself already become the bailee of the chattel on behalf of the true owner. 20 Report Document Comments Please sign inor registerto post comments. At that stage it was no longer lost and they received and accepted the bracelet from the plaintiff on terms that it would be returned to him if the owner could not be found. Then we were referred to Parker v BA Board, been, not as it was there, but as, in the opinion of this court, it is in the present case." 509.]. Sharmanscase itself is readily distinguishable, either upon the ground that the rings were in the mud and thus part of the realty or upon the ground that the finders were employed by the plaintiff to remove the mud and had a clear right to direct how the mud and anything in it should be disposed of, or upon both grounds. (2d)727, 734: I do not think that anyone could seriously quarrel with the principle as extended by Lord Russell in that way so long as it is established in evidence as a basis for the presumption that the occupier has in fact the possession of house or land, with a manifest intention to exercise control over it (i.e., the land or the house) and the things which may be upon or in it I say this because I think there must be a natural presumption of possession in favour of the person in occupation a presumption which hardly needs a legal decision for its authority.. Three years later Mr. Bridges asked for the money and offered to indemnify Mr. Hawkesworth in respect of the expenses which he had incurred in advertising for the owner. The official handed the bracelet to the lost property department of the defendants. (Bond University), This page was last edited on 12 April 2023, at 12:02. Parker v British Airways Board - Alchetron, the free social encyclopedia He found himself in the International Executive lounge at Terminal One, Heathrow Airport. Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2021. 2023 vLex Justis Limited All rights reserved, VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. Mr Parker, the British Airways official and British Airways itself had all acted as one would have hoped and expected them to act. 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. 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. The person vis-a-vis whom he is a trespasser has a better title. Mr G.C. On November 15, 1978, the plaintiff, Alan George Parker, had a date with fateand perhaps E with legal immortality. 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?' Lord Justice Donaldson will deliver the first judgment. ], Geoffrey Brownfor the plaintiff. The fundamental basis of this is clearly public policy. The finder has no obligation to take reasonable steps to let the true owner know of the finding and to take care of it. 982. Parker v British Airways Board [1982] Q.B. 1004 - Studocu 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. Parker v British Airways Board [1982] 1 QB 1004 Facts A man finds a gold bracelet in an airport. Evidence was given of staff instructions which govern the action to be taken by employees of the defendants if they found lost articles or lost chattels were handed to them. The following judgments were read. The official handed the bracelet to the lost property department of British Airways. If the notes had been accidentally kicked into the shop [the street inLaw Journal, which must be right], and there found by someone passing by, could it be contended that the defendant was entitled to them from the mere fact of their being originally dropped in his shop? On 15th November, 1978, Mr Alan George Parker had a date with fateand perhaps with legal immortality. & S.566andBird v. Fort Frances[1949]2D.L.R. The funadmental basis of this is clearly public policy. 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. 505, andBridges v. Hawkesworth,21L.J.Q.B. 860,D.C. Kowal v. Ellis(1977)76D.L.R. Although the owner never claimed the bracelet, British Airways did not return it to Mr Parker. [para. 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. Donaldson LJ held that this was a case of "finders keepers". D. 562 at page 568, although the chattel concerned was beneath the surface of the soil and so subject to different considerations. 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. British Airways now appeal. Clearly he had not forgotten the schoolboy maxim Finders keepers. But, equally clearly, he was well aware of the adult qualification unless the true owner claims the article. He had had to clear customs and security to reach the lounge. 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 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. 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. The bracelet was never claimed. Patteson J. gave the judgment of the court. And that was not all that he found. 288. But I think that, when analysed, the issue really turned upon rival claims by the plaintiff to be the true owner in the sense of being the tenant for life of the realty, of the minerals in the land and of the boat if it was a chattel and by the defendants as lessees rather than as finders. A similar result was effected inHibbert v. McKiernan[1948]2K.B. 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. Licensee sold the bracelet - the finder sued for value. On 15th November, 1978, Mr Alan George Parker had a date with fateand perhaps with legal immortality. 75, is the closest case on its facts to the present case. 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. Ltd.[1970]1W.L.R. 75,15Jur. The defendants claim has a different basis. Bridges v. Hawkesworth(1851)21L.J.Q.B. On 15th November, 1978, Mr Alan George Parker had a date with fateand perhaps with legal immortality. InMoffatt v. Kazana[1969]2Q.B. 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. Parker v British Airways Board - Studylib Accordingly, Mr. Desch rightly directed our attention to the need to have common law rules which will facilitate rather than hinder the ascertainment of the true owner of a lost chattel and a reunion between the two. 1262andMitchell v. Ealing London Borough Council[1979]Q.B. Who has a better claim, him or the airport? The following additional cases were cited in argument: Gilchrist Watt and Sanderson Pty. The plaintiff occupier was held to be entitled to the rings. Perhaps the nearest case is that ofMerry v. Green(1841)7M. & W.623, but it differs in many respects from the present. LeBel J.A. Thus far the story is unremarkable. When British Airways instead sold the bracelet, Parker sued. ; but even this work, full as it is of subtle distinctions and nice reasonings, does not afford a solution of the present question. 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. PDF FINDERS, OCCUPIERS AND POSSESSION - Australasian Legal Information There is no authority in our law to be found directly in point. A partnership is intertwined in the treaty. The defendants 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. Parker v British Airways Board [1982] 1 QB 1004 is an English property law case ordered by the Court of Appeal. 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. In the present case the plaintiff could not be a true finder because when the bracelet was lost and before it was found the defendants had title as against an unascertained finder. And that was not all that he found. It was held that the non-occupying owner had no right to the brooch and that therefore the finders claim prevailed. InHannah v. Peel[1945]K.B. The plaintiff, the defendants official and the defendants themselves had all acted as one would have hoped and expected them to act. They cannot and do not claim to have found the bracelet when it was handed to them by Mr Parker. Mr. Hawkesworth refused to pay over the money and Mr. Bridges sued for it. 29 Donaldson LJ in Parker v. B.A. England. This seems to be the law in Ontario, Canada: Bird v. Fort Frances[1949]2D.L.R. He handed it to an employee of the defendants and gave the employee his name and address and requested that if the owner did not claim the bracelet it should be returned to him. Parker V British Airways Board (17 May) Case analysis exercise of Ngoi v Wen [2017 ] NZCA 519; Session 11 Directors duties 2.docx; Newest. 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. 509the occupier was not in physical possession of the premises. Bridges v. Hawkesworth(1851)21L.J.Q.B. The court would then have been faced with two claimants, neither of which had any legal right, but one had de facto possession. Clearly he had not forgotten the schoolboy maxim "Finders keepers". One can imagine cases where a chattel is abandoned by its first owner and may then become the property of someone else, perhaps a landowner who exercises control and dominion over it. The Treaty of Waitangi is New Zealand's founding document representing the Maori community's agreement and the British crown (Wilson, 2015). Solicitors:Richards, Butler & Co.; Edward Isaacs & Co. 1/120 Bluestone Circuit Seventeen Mile Rocks QLD 4073, Grafstein v. Holme and Freeman(1958)12D.L.R. 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 See Bulletin of Proceedings taken in the Supreme Court of Canada at page 2209 . Where the borderline should be drawn would be difficult to specify, but I am satisfied that this case falls on the wrong side of the borderline from the defendants point of view. took a different view of Lord Russell of Killowen C.J.s judgment in South Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman[1896]2Q.B. Parker v British Airways Board [1982] 1 QB 1004. Counsel: . For my part, I can find no trace in the report ofBridges v. Hawkesworth,21L.J.Q.B. Parker v BA Board: 1982 - swarb.co.uk 26 July 1983 ; 09 July 1984 . He found himself in the International Executive lounge at Terminal One, Heathrow Airport. As he was leaving the shop, he picked up a small parcel which was lying on the floor, showed it to the shopman and, upon opening it in his presence, found that it contained 65 in notes.
