Report file for Parker v. British Airways Board [1982] QB 1004, Study notes of English

Download Report file for Parker v. British Airways Board [1982] QB 1004 and more Study notes English in PDF only on Docsity! Finder area 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. In my opinion—following Bridges v. Hawkesworth—the finder wins. In Bridges v. Hawkesworth, 1 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”.2 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 Bridges v. Hawkesworth : 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 Bridges v. Hawkesworth. In that case the other claimant was the owner of the premises where the chattel was found. Nevertheless, I believe that Bridges v. Hawkesworth should be followed. If City of London Corporation v. Appleyard (1) is followed then the finder loses. In City of London Corporation v. Appleyard (1), 3 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. Wates Ltd was an independent contractor engaged by Yorkwin Investments Ltd for a con­ struction project. Yorkwin was lessee in possession of the property which was owned in fee simple by the City of London. 1(1851) 21 LJQB 75. 2ibid. at 77 per Patteson J. 3[1963] 1 WLR 982. 1 The Court followed the decision in South Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman4 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 de facto possession of the safe, even though ignorant of its existence. 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 London v. Appleyard (1): 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 London v. Appleyard (1). 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 London v. Appleyard (1) and Bridges v. Hawkesworth are both deci­ sions of the Queen’s Bench Division of the English High Court, there is nothing in London v. Appleyard (1) to warrant any change in my conclusion. 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. If that were so then I would be more strongly of the opinion that—following Bridges v. Hawkesworth—the finder wins. Details of Bridges v. Hawkesworth are summarized above. The hypothetical case is on all fours with Bridges v. Hawkesworth. If City of London Corporation v. Appleyard (2) or South Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman are followed then the finder loses. In City of London Corporation v. Appleyard (2), 5 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. Wates Ltd was an independent contractor engaged by Yorkwin Investments Ltd for a con­ struction 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. 4[1896] 2 QB 44. 5[1963] 1 WLR 982. 2