Land law- the law of finding Flashcards
When determining ownership, who are the potential claimants?
1) true owner 2) occupier 3) the finder 4) the state
Discuss object which are found below the surface
In Pollack and wright, it was stated that if an item was found in/below the surface of the land, it was attached to the land and therefore the landowner had the best claim to it.
Discuss what happened in Elwes v Brigg?
A gas company held a 99-year lease over the land and found
a prehistoric boat when digging on the site. The boat was six feet below the surface. The court held that the freeholder of the property had ownership over the boat because it was
found in the land. Note the year in this case.
Discuss the facts in the city of London Corporation v. Appleyard
In this case, Banknotes were found in a safe concealed in the building. A dispute arose over who owned the banknotes. It was found that the party who were leasing the building since 1889 (80 year lease) had a claim due to the fact that they were in possession of the property. However, there was a clause in this lease that stated that any ancient relics found on the premises belongs to the corporation. This clause overturned the courts initial findings.
What happened in Waverly BC v. Fletcher
Facts: A brooch was found in a public park owned by Waverly Council. Fletcher found the item using a metal detector. It was some 9 inches below the ground. There were signs warning park users not to use metal detectors, but these had been torn down
at the time. Held: The Council had the better claim over the brooch because it was found in the land and therefore was part of the land.
Discuss the facts in Armory v. Delamirie
Facts: A chimney sweep found an item of jewellery in a chimney. The chimney sweep brought it to a jeweller to be valued but the jeweller kept it for himself. The boy sued to get the item back.
Held: The boy, as finder, had a better claim to the item then the jeweller
Discuss the facts in Hannah v Peel
Facts: A soldier (Hannah) found a brooch in a room in the sick bay of a house which had been requisitioned by the army. The brooch was found “loose in a crevice on the top of a window frame”. The soldier the owner of the house (Peel) had never occupied the house himself. Held: As the landowner had never been in possession of the house, the soldier had the better claim to the object as finder.
Discuss the facts in Parker v British Airways Board
Facts: A passenger found a bracelet in the lounge of British Airways at Heathrow. They handed it in to the staff stipulating that if no one claimed it, they would like to keep it themselves. British Airways never found the original owner but sold it for £850. When Parker discovered this, he tried to claim the bracelet for himself.
Held: That as the bracelet was found in a public area that British Airways did not exert sufficient control over, in the absence of finding the original owner, Parker had the better claim to the bracelet.
When will the occupier have a superior right?
The occupier will however have a “superior right to those of the finder…if he has manifested an intention to exercise control over the building and the things which may be upon it or in it.”
What are the criteria that was set out due to the case of Parker v Bristish Airways Board?
Donaldson MR set out that if:
1) finder is lawfully on land/building and the
2) Article not attached or buried in land
3) Takes article into his control and care
4) Makes effort to give item back to true owner…
- then the finder has good title in the article unless the
occupier of the property has exerted sufficient control over the area.
The facts in Webb v Ireland, is a leading case which discussed when the state exercise ownership of the finding. Discuss the facts of this case
Webb and his son found the Derrynaflan Hoard which included a chalice. The Hoard was worth a large sum of money (valued at the time as worth ￡5,536,000 (punts)). They did not own the land they found the chalice on. They had permission to be on the land but not permission to dig on it. As at the time the ruined church was subject to a preservation order, the Webbs would not have been able to obtain permission to dig on it from the landowners.
Webb v Ireland
They handed the find into the National Museum with a note from their solicitors stating that they were placing the find in the care of the National Museum until the ownership of the find had been determined. The National Museum promised to treat the duo honourably. The State offered the Webbs £10,000 which was refused. The State then paid the two landowners £25,000 each for any interest they might have in the find.
Webb v Ireland
The State argued 1. The landowners had the better claim and the State had acquired the claim by paying the money. 2. The State had a better claim due to the British doctrine of treasure trove which vested all interest in gold and silver found without a known true owner in the State.
What did the High Court say?
The High Court ordered the treasure to be returned to the Webbs subject to payment for the work the National Museum had done to the objects.
What happened when the case went to the high court?
Initially, State lost. The Court deemed that the State only held the treasure for safekeeping under the law of bailment and therefore could not claim ownership for themselves. 2. The prerogative of treasure trove had not survived the creation of the Irish State.
The Supreme Court had previously decided this in Byrne v. Ireland.
