English Property Law
Note: To read about this case in greater depth, and with the benefit of full OSCOLA referencing, simply purchase a copy of ‘The Case Law Compendium: English & European Law’ at Amazon, Waterstones or Barnes & Noble (or go here for a full list of international outlets)
Under the breadth of property ownership, does the principle of occupier’s rights supersede the entitlement of an authentic finder, or is the common law more complex than first appears?
While waiting to catch a flight, a qualified guest of an airport lounge discovered an abandoned men’s gold bracelet on the seating area floor. By virtue of his own honesty, the respondent handed the jewellery to a member of staff, on the proviso that should the original owner not be found, the airline was to forward the item to his home address as was provided.
After waiting almost a year, the appellants instead took it upon themselves to sell the bracelet, while directly profiting from the sale. Upon discovery, the respondent immediately sued for loss incurred from the deceit and conversion of assets. In the first hearing, the judge awarded in favour of the passenger, whereupon the airline appealed and the matter was given greater thought.
When assessing the imputation that occupiers of land are privy to greater powers of ownership to lost property, the distinctions were drawn in order to clarify where the exceptions to those assumptions lay. In common law, it has been largely agreed through the progression of case law, that in many familiar circumstances, the rights to ownership of property construed as abandoned or lost, would fall to the landowner. However, in this case the airline took no steps to draw notice to that right when considering the frequency and nature of transient visitors to their lounge. In contrast, the only provisions made for matters involving lost property entailed procedural guides for staff members and no more.
After careful evaluation of the two prevailing rights, and when comparing to the honest intentions of the passenger to an abject failure of the airline to express their position when handling lost property, the Appeal Court held that it would be unreasonable to deny the respondent his fundamental rights to ownership of property honestly acquired in the absence of the original owner.