parker v british airways board case

Pratt C.J. The common law right asserted by Mr Parker has been recognised for centuries. "Occupiers" of vehicles like boats, cars, airplanes, etc. 1262andMitchell v. Ealing London Borough Council[1979]Q.B. Take the householder. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners. Wrongdoers should not benefit from their wrongdoing. when he says that he would accept Lord Russell of Killowen C.J.s statement of the general principle, provided that the occupiers intention to exercise control over anything which might be on the premises was manifest. [1953]Ch. But it is impossible to go further and to hold that the mere right of an occupier to exercise such control is sufficient to give him rights in relation to lost property on his premises without overrulingBridges v. Hawkesworth,21L.J.Q.B. What is necessary to do this must depend on the circumstances. 75. 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. Favourite Cases: Parker v British Airways Board - Article by Natalie In Johnson v. Pickering[1907]2K.B. 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. He considered that Lord Russell of Killowen C.J. for the defendants, submits thatBridges v. Hawkesworth, 15Jur. The common law right asserted by the plaintiff has been recognised for centuries. 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. The bracelet had been lost by its rightful owner. [para. Parker v British Airways Board [1982] 1 QB 1004 - 03-13-2018 by casesummaries - Law Case Summaries - http://lawcasesummaries.com Parker v British Airways Board [1982] 1 QB 1004 http://lawcasesummaries.com/knowledge-base/parker-v-british-airways-board-1982-1-qb-1004/ Facts Issue Held man finds a gold bracelet in an airport. He also gave the official a note of his name and address and asked for the bracelet to be returned to him if it was not claimed by the owner. The firmer the control, the less will be the need to demonstrate independently the animus possidendi. Parker v BA Board: 1982 - swarb.co.uk Parker v British Airways Board -Test for Finder v Occupier of Land:Obiter Who has a better claim, him or the airport? 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. Furthermore, it was not a finding case, for the logs were never lost. When British Airways instead sold the bracelet, Parker sued. Accordingly, the common law has been obliged to give rights to someone else, the owner exhypothesi being unknown. 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". 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. 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. He sued British Airways in the Brentford County Court and was awarded 850 as damages and 50 as interest. 75, was emphasised by Lord Russell of Killowen C.J. On November 15, 1978, while the plaintiff, Alan George Parker, was waiting as a passenger in the executive lounge at terminal one of London Heathrow Airport he found a gentlemans gold bracelet lying on the floor. Indeed, it seems that the academics have been debating this problem for years. Perhaps the only officials in sight were employees of British Airways. This seems to be the law in Ontario, Canada (, Request a trial to view additional results, Daniel s/o D William v Luhat Wan and Others and Luhat Wan v Social and Welfare Services Lotteries Board and Others, Marcq v Christie Manson and Woods Ltd (t/a Christie's), Costello v Chief Constable of Derbyshire Constabulary. 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. 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." However, it is more convenient to consider these dicta hereafter. 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. In doing so, we should draw from the experience of the past as revealed by the previous decisions of the courts. He sued British Airways in the Brentford County Court and was awarded 850 as damage and 50 as interest. South Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman[1896]2Q.B. Wrongdoers should not benefit from their wrongdoing. There is no evidence that he was in the executive lounge in the course of any employment or agency and, if he was, the finding of the bracelet was quite clearly collateral thereto. 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. Pratt C.J's ruling is, however, only a general proposition which requires definition. D. 562, Grafstein v Holme and Freeman, 12 DLR (2d) 727 (Ont CA), Parker v British Airways Board (1982) 1 All ER 834, Bridges v Hawkesworth (1851), 15 Jur. Parker v British Airways Board [1982] QB 1004 - Law Journals Parker v British Airways Board - Studocu The evidence is that they claimed the right to decide who should and who should not be permitted to enter and use the lounge, but their control was in general exercised upon the basis of classes or categories of user and the availability of the lounge in the light of the need to clean and maintain it. authorities, and requested that he be contacted if the owner was not found. He was saying that there was nothing in the place where the notes were found to rebut the principle of finders keepers. There was nothing special about it. 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. And that was not all that he found. 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. 142. The rights of the parties thus depend upon the common law. 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. If the finder takes it into their care with dishonest intent or in the course of trespassing, then they acquire only limited rights. If the discovery had never [not] been communicated to the defendant, could the real owner have had any cause of action against him because they were found in his house? British Airways Board v. Laker Airways Ltd. and Another. I think that this is right. Those were cases in which a thing was cast into a public place or into the sea into a place, in fact, of which it could not be said that anyone had a real de facto possession, or a general power and intent to exclude unauthorised interference Bridges v. Hawkesworthstands by itself, and on special grounds; and on those grounds it seems to me that the decision in that case was right. These steps were really taken by the defendant as the agent of the plaintiff, and he has been offered an indemnity, the sufficiency of which is not disputed. 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. Elwes v. Brigg Gas Co.(1886)33Ch.D. In all likely circumstances that licence will give the occupier a superior right to that of the finder. It reads: The notes which are the subject of this action were incidentally [evidently] dropped, by mere accident, in the shop of the defendant, by the owner of them. 4, October 2005, The Modern Law Review Nbr. 44, 47, when he said: The shopkeeper did not know they had been dropped, and did not in any sense exercise control over them. What the position would have been if the Crown had made a claim was not considered. The conflicting rights of finder and occupier have indeed been considered by various Courts in the past. And that is not all he found. said: It is somewhat strange that there is no more direct authority on the question; but the general principle seems to me to be that where a person has possession of house or land, with a manifest intention to exercise control over it and the things which may be upon or in it, then, if something is found on that land, whether by an employee of the owner or by a stranger, the presumption is that the possession of that thing is in the owner of the locus in quo.. 75, is the closest case on its facts to the present case. Parker v British Airways Board [1982] QB 1004 Case summary Unless the land owner exercises sufficient control and the finder is a trespasser: Hibbert v McKiernan [1948] 2 KB 142 Case summary Rights Above and Below the Surface of Land 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 . However, he probably has some title, albeit a frail one because of the need to avoid a free-for-all. 288. 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. 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". Patteson J. gave the judgment of the court. The following additional cases were cited in argument: Gilchrist Watt and Sanderson Pty. Mr Parker discovered what had happened and was more than a little annoyed. 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. In its simplest form it was asserted by the chimney sweep's boy who, in 1722, found a jewel and offered it to a jeweller for sale. Get access. British Airways now appeal.. . The obvious candidate is the occupier of the property upon which the finder was trespassing. andRobert Webbfor the defendants. There could be a number of reasons. He found himself in the International Executive lounge at Terminal One, Heathrow Airport. Perhaps the only officials in sight were employees of the defendants. The plaintiff delivered the bracelet to an employee of the defendants, British Airways Board, together with particulars of the plaintiffs name and address and orally requested that in the event of the bracelet not being claimed by the rightful owner it should be returned to the plaintiff. The rule as stated by Pratt C.J. They would have to show that they manifested an intention to exercise control over the area the 50 was found. 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. He has the key to the front door. The defendant airways occupied, as lessees, the international executive lounge at an airways terminal and permitted passengers of specific classes to use it. I agree with both Donaldson L.J. British Airways' claim has a different basis. inHibbert v. McKiernan[1948]2K.B. Parker v British Airways Board Occupier: An occupier is a person occupying the building, land, etc. An occupier of a chattel, e.g. 152andPollock and Wright, Possession in the Common Law(1888), p. 75;15Jur. Module 1 Exam Cheat Sheet - PERSONAL PROPERTY THE MEANING OF - Studocu The defendants did not carry out searches for lost articles. 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. & S.566. He also found a gold bracelet lying on the floor. Pratt C.J. 35 (1851) 21 LJQB 75. We were referred, in the course of the argument, to the learned work of Von Savigny, edited by Perry C.J. Parker v British Airways Board - Studylib Moffatt v. Kazana[1969]2Q.B. Clearly he had not forgotten the schoolboy maxim "Finders keepers." Parker V British Airways Board (17 May) Case analysis exercise of Ngoi v Wen [2017 ] NZCA 519; Session 11 Directors duties 2.docx; Newest. Parker v British Airways Board - Parker v British Airways - Course Hero 49. The defendants had no superior title to the bracelet than the plaintiff. But under the rules of English jurisprudence, none of their decisions binds this Court. The person vis-a-vis whom he is a trespasser has a better title. See Bulletin of Proceedings taken in the Supreme Court of Canada at page 2209 . Essentially, your rights depend on how exclusive the area is, though this is difficult to determine. We know very little about Mr Parker, and it would be nice to know more. 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. Whatever the reason, he gave the bracelet to an anonymous official of the defendants instead of to the police. 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. The person vis-a-vis whom he is a trespasser has a better title. Perhaps Mr Parker's flight had just been called and he was pressed for time. 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 funadmental basis of this is clearly public policy. The bracelet was never claimed. 271. 75, 78: the learned judge was mistaken in holding that the place in which they were found makes any legal difference. He was not saying that the place is an irrelevant consideration. 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. Lost or abandoned objects: Finders keepers? InSouth Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman[1896]2Q.B. Mr STEPHEN DESCH, Q.C and Mr ROBERT WEBB (instructed by Messrs Richards, Butler & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Appellants (Defendants). The jeweller refused either to pay a price acceptable to the boy or to return it and the boy sued the jeweller for its value:Armory v. Delamirie(1722)1Stra. (Note: Embedded and Fixtures), With regard to items in (or on top of) the building: The occupier has better rights only if they have manifested an intention to exercise control over the building and the things in it. In so doing, I take the text of the report in the Jurist,15Jur. 75, of any reliance by Patteson J. upon the fact that the notes were found in what may be described as the public part of the shop. 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. Mr Parker discovered what had happened and was more than a little annoyed. 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. Thus far the story is unremarkable. The pump in question appears to have been cached rather than abandoned. "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". Finally, there isHannah v. Peel[1945]K.B. 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?' Thus one who finds a lost chattel in the sense of becoming aware of its presence, but who does no more, is not a finder for this purpose and does not, as such, acquire any rights. It was in this context that we were also referred to the opinion of the Judicial Committee in. We were also referred to two Canadian authorities. He found himself in the international executive lounge at terminal one, Heathrow Airport. The position would have been otherwise in the case of most or perhaps all the defendants employees. The rights of the parties thus depend upon the common law. 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. Parker v. British Airways Board, [1982] 1 All E.R. Finders Keepers? A Historical Survey of Lost and Abandoned Property and Rights above and below surface of land - e-lawresources.co.uk This is not to say that we start with a clean sheet. 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. 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. Held The occupier must attempt to exert control if they want to have the best claim 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. SIR DAVID CAIRNS. But there the present problem did not arise because the occupier of the premises was not party to the proceedings. 1262;[1970]3All E.R. It is reflected in the judgment of Chitty J. in Elwes v. Brigg Gas Co., (1886) 33 Ch. 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. in Hibbert v. Mckiernan, (1948) 2 K.B. 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. The obvious candidate is the occupier of the property upon which the finder was trespassing. Held, dismissing the appeal, that the plaintiff in taking the bracelet into his care and control acquired rights of possession except against the true owner and in handing it to an official of the defendants he acted honestly and in discharge of his obligations as a finder; that his rights could only be displaced by the defendants if they could show as occupiers an obvious intention to exercise such control over the lounge and things in it that the bracelet was in their possession before the plaintiff found it; that, on the evidence there was no manifestation of such an intention as would give the defendants a right superior to that of the plaintiff and, accordingly, the judge came to the right conclusion (post, pp. But despite the plaintiffs requests for its return to him, the defendants sold it on June 17, 1979. In a dispute of this nature there are two quite separate problems. 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. Parker v. Parker, (1989) 100 N.B.R.(2d) 361 (TD) - vLex 562, 568, although the chattel concerned was beneath the surface of the soil and so subject to different considerations. InElwes v. Brigg Gas Co.,33Ch.D. Nothing that was done afterwards has altered the state of things; the advertisements inserted [indeed] in the newspaper, referring to the defendant, had the same object; the plaintiff has tendered the expense of those advertisements to the defendant, and offered him an indemnity against any claim to be made by the real owner, and has demanded the notes.