Moffatt v. Kazana[1969]2Q.B. The plaintiff was in the lounge as a passenger waiting for his flight when he found a gold bracelet lying on the floor. It is rather like the strong room of a bank, where I think it would be difficult indeed to suggest that a bracelet lying on the floor was not in the possession of the bank. The shopkeeper did not know they had been dropped, and did not in any sense exercise control over them. Canada (Attorney General) v. Brock Estate et al., (1993) 32 B.C.A.C. 49 44]. Article. 29 Donaldson LJ in Parker v. B.A. 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. as saying that it is necessary for the occupier to prove that his intention was obvious. They cannot and do not claim to have found the bracelet when it was handed to them by Mr Parker. 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. 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. Mr. Brown, for the plaintiff, relies heavily upon the decision of Patteson J. and Wightman J., sitting in banc inBridges v. Hawkesworth(1851)21L.J.Q.B. Some qualification has also to be made in the case of the trespassing finder. Their claim must, on my view of the law, be based upon a manifest intention to exercise control over the lounge and all things which might be in it. 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. 834 (C.A. The occupier must attempt to exert control if they want to have the best claim, A person who dishonestly acquires a chattel will have little claim to it, A finder only has a right if it is lost or abandoned and s/he exerts control over it, National Crime Authority v Flack (1998) 86 FCR 16, Waverly Borough Council v Fletcher [1995] 4 All ER 756, Download Parker v British Airways Board [1982] 1 QB 1004 as PDF.

R V Light 1857 Citation, Articles P