Hannah v Peel (17 May) - Lecture notes which are colour coded PDF

Preview

Summary

Lecture notes which are colour coded...

Description

Laws101 15 May 2019

Hannah v Peel [1945] 1 KB 509 Read them KB- kings bench- coordinate jurisdiction to previous cases Cur ad vult – reserved decision This means that the judge took time to make a decision so that he took the case away and considered it.’ Hannah- Plaintif Peel- defendant Facts: • • • • •

• • • •

The owner of a house, Peel( the Defendant), never occupied it House requisitioned in WWII by government for use by military Hannah (the Plaintif) stationed at house Hannah found brooch at top of a window-frame in a crevice Hannah handed brooch to police; got receipt

Police returned brooch to Peel(property owner), who sold it No evidence Peel, owner of land, knew of the existence of brooch Hannah demanded return of brooch and then sued (detinue) for its return or for compensation Peel claimed as property owner he was in possession of the brooch at the time it was found so he had a better right to it.

66 pounds- $5000 dollars (equivalent) Sold for more… No evidence that Peel (property owner) knew broach was there Peel ofered a reward for Hannah for finding it Lance Corporal Hannah demanded that Peel return the broach, Hannah had finders rights Arguments for Plaintiff. – lawyer put across for finder Finder (Hannah) • Apply Armory – finder entitled to possession against all but true owner • Analogy with Bridges – money found in shop to which public had access and owner had no knowledge of lost item • Sharman can be explained (and distinguished) on basis that finder was agent of Water Company • Distinguish Elwes – only applies to things attached to or under land, does not extend to things unattached

Arguments for Defendant owner of land (Peel) • Apply Sharman - possession of house/land plus manifest intention to control land and everything in it or upon it leads to presumption in favour of owner • Analogy with Sharman –owner had no knowledge of item but still held that property owner had better right • Owner does not lose rights by leasing land (Elwes) • Distinguish Bridges - notes found in shop – in efect they were found in a public place – If Bridges not distinguishable then it has been overruled by Sharman and Elwes

Birkett J Judgment  Goes through precedents (pg 513-519)  “A review of these judgments shows that the authorities are in an unsatisfactory state” per Birkett J, p 520 Read case- he goes through the authorities- the cases we looked at. He looks at Bridges and Hawkesworth- acknowledges disagreements. Lord Russel and Sharman said it is irrelevant money found on floor in shop. Criticised for Lord Russel and Sharman for the place the items were found. How are cases materially different or the same? • Armory v Delamirie chimney sweep finds jewel • Bridges v Hawkesworth money found on floor in shop • Elwes v Brigg Gas prehistoric boat found under land • South Staffordshire v Sharman rings found in mud in pool Birkett J’s Reasoning Clear from authorities that a person possesses everything attached to or under his/her land “It is fairly clear from the authorities that a man possesses everything which is attached to or under his land.” P 520 •

He is saying that the broach is not attached to property- now something to consider Reasoning • A person does not necessarily possess a thing which is lying unattached (Bridges) “Secondly, it would appear to be the law from the authorities I have cited, and particularly from Bridges v Hawkesworth, that a man does not necessarily possess a thing which is lying

unattached on the surface of his land even though the thing is not possessed by someone else.” P 520 = unattached= who does it belong to= law is unclear “A difficulty however, arises, because the rule which governs things an occupier possesses as against those which he does not, has never been clearly formulated in our law. He may possess everything on the land from which he intends to exclude others … or he may possess those things of which he has defacto control.” per Birkett J, p 520-521 May possess anything on land which they have control or actually poccess it Finder or property owner only ever has a pocesseary right. Everything on land to exclude or things have actual control Bridges- shop owner never had actual control Bridges- Never within care and protection Possession – can either be – • of everything on land where he/she intends to exclude others OR • of those things over which he/she has defacto control De facto = actual

Applies the law to the facts • Brooch lost • Brooch found by Hannah • Brooch found on premises owned by Peel but unattached • Hannah took brooch to Police • Peel never in physical possession of premises at any time – nor prior possession of brooch • Peel had no knowledge of brooch • True owner never found Decision- give judgement to plaintif- Hannah Follow that decision. An example Judge becomes clear that he is going to follow Bridges and Hawkesworth Read around the words- work out how the judge has treated it Follow- bound by previous decision coordinate or superior- material facts same or substantially similar Material Facts

• • • • •

Property owner had never occupied house The judge said the property owner never lived in house then he never had physical possession of the items in the house. Property requisitioned by government  cant abstract it anymore, specific situation Item found in property not attached to property (important aspect) Item was not attached to property Property owner did not know of existence of item

Issue Incorporate all the material facts Whether the owner of a property, who has never been in physical possession of it, has the right to items found in or on it, but not attached to it, when he/she is unaware of the existence of the items, than the finder, (when the true owner cannot be found)?

Ratio The owner of a property, who has never been in physical possession of it, does not have a superior right to items found in or on it, but not attached to it, when he/she is unaware of the existence of the items, than the finder (when the true owner cannot be found). Questions • How should a judge make a decision in the face of conflicting precedents? • Are the facts in Hannah more similar to Bridges or Sharman? • How is Sharman dealt with? General rules? • Attached to or under the land = occupier/owner – Elwes, Sharman • Unattached = finder (so far …) – Armory, Bridges, Hannah • NOTE: each case is only authority for what it decides on its facts – Armory only authority re position of finder – Sharman only authority re things found in the land – Hannah limited to cases of non-occupying owners...