waverley bc v fletcher [1996]waverley bc v fletcher [1996]

"coreDisableEcommerceForBookPurchase": false, 15 And see, generally, Historical Foundations of the Common Law (London: Butterworth, 2nd edn, 1981) p 36 document.write([location.protocol, '//', location.host, location.pathname].join('')); You should not treat any information in this problem question as being authoritative. 198 The rule theorist will, of course, want to link reasoning by analogy with reasoning from rules and principles: see eg Google Scholar. underneath the surface 152 See generally The park was open to the public for leisure and recreational use and Mr Fletcher was a lawful visitor to the park. 1yzQYeeT&Olp@p It belongs to the land 110 Ibid pp 305313. For the inductive and deductive method see Lord Diplock in Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co [1970] AC 1004 at 10581059. Google Scholar; Dubouchet, P It may, perhaps, be asked quite why classification is a pressing problem, for it is by no means clear from the papers themselves that common lawyers have suddenly become more concerned about the internal structure of the seamless web. D, E, F, G and H hold legal title as joint tenants on trust for D, E, F, G and H as joint tenants in equity. And see, generally, Tierney, B Whilst this does not appear to be any direct authority for what is required in order for the painting to have been abandoned it appears that where an individual illegally removes things from land, their title is less than that of a landowner11 and therefore, by analogy, it could be suggested that illegally placing something on property might have the effect of revoking title to it. La dcision artificielle: le droit, la machine et l'humain (Presses Universitaires de France, 1995) pp 205208 The issue is twofold. 163 Watson Making of the Civil Law op cit pp 1422. <> 196 Bridge, M 42 Elwes v Brigg Gas Company (1886) 33 Ch D 562 Case summary . Kuhn, T S 206 See also Ex p Island Records [1978] Ch 122. Kelsen, H The issues in respect of the painting are rather complicated in a number of respects. Contractual licences can bind third parties and thus do have proprietary status. 43 For a stimulating historical reflection on this distinction see The Coroner decided that it was not treasure trove. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago, 2nd edn, 1970)Google Scholar. Piaget, J It was held that the council's rights to the brooch were superior to the finder's. Where an object is found in or attached to land, the owner of that land has better title to that object . See also Samuel and Rinkes op cit pp 2426. Halprin, J-L, Histoire du droit priv ranais depuis 1804 (Presses Universitaires de France, 1996) pp 2526 13 Waverley Borough Council v Fletcher [1995] 4 All ER 756 is an English Court of Appeal case. 177 Delacour op cit p 34. Dias, R W M Chapter 7 Is legal reasoning like medical reasoning? Later that day Tom phones to tell Jack he has a buyer. Google Scholar. Medieval Thought: From St Augustine to Ockham (Penguin, 1958) pp 104114, 279294Google Scholar. 3 0 obj 217 See generally A Watson The Importance of Nutshells op cit. Legal Studies See also P Legrand Comparative Legal Studies and Commitment to Theory (1995) 58 MLR 262. Google Scholar. It is interesting in this context that Tom may be better off if the spoon is found to be treasure than if it is just considered a valuable item. Google Scholar. Nevertheless the seminar was a valuable opportunity to reflect upon a subject that is at least a useful vehicle for thinking about legal knowledge. Gdel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid (Penguin, pp 161162. La formation de la pense juridique moderne (Monchrestien, 4th edn, 1975) pp 538540 Chapter 10 Can legal reasoning be rethought? A Casebook on Tort (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 8th edn, 1996) pp 109112 66 G.1.8; 5.1.2.12; D.1.5.1; Samuel and Rinkes op cit pp 6466. It does not seem however that it would then allow him to sell the painting. Total loading time: 0 Watson, A The Importance of Nutshells (1994) 42 131 14 Op. An Introduction to Comparative Law (Oxford, 2nd rev edn, 1992; trans T Weir) p 664 Exploration is encouraged by the absence of mineral rights vesting in the surface owner, whereby landowners would become beneficiaries, having contributed nothing in search Google Scholar. Baker, J H } Application of money received from the mortgaged property must be applied by the receiver in accordance with s105 LPA 1925. 57 58 See eg Google Scholar. A finder is a quasi-Bailee for the true owner 7 and has a duty to take reasonable steps to restore the property to its true owner. The Character and Influence of the Roman Civil Law (Hambledon, 1988) pp 7382 Testimonianze sulla storia della Magistratura italiana (Orazio Abbamonte), Auditing (Robyn Moroney; Fiona Campbell; Jane Hamilton; Valerie Warren), Financial Reporting (Janice Loftus; Ken J. Leo; Noel Boys; Belinda Luke; Sorin Daniliuc; Hong Ang; Karyn Byrnes), Principles of Marketing (Philip Kotler; Gary Armstrong; Valerie Trifts; Peggy H. Cunningham), Financial Institutions, Instruments and Markets (Viney; Michael McGrath; Christopher Viney), Lawyers' Professional Responsibility (Gino Dal Pont), Australian Financial Accounting (Craig Deegan). 134 Samuel and Rinkes op cit pp 277293. 195 See eg 167 Samuel Foundations op cit pp 235237. 44 The result of this is that the strongest title to the painting lies with Jacks landlord and Tom cannot sell the painting without the landlords permission. Google Scholar. Firstly, because he may wish to remain anonymous14 and secondly, will also, as mentioned, be liable in criminal damage if he comes forward. 208 208 Atiyah op cit pp 764-778. Dubouchet, P The position in respect of the spoon is slightly less complicated than that in respect of the painting in that the notion of ownership is more clearly set out. Waverley Borough Council v Fletcher (1996) correct incorrect. 228; Churchward v Studdy (1811) 14 East 249; 104 ER 596. 127 E Weinberg The Juridical Classification of Obligations (SPTL Seminar Paper, 1996) p 5. Fletcher [1995] 4 All E.R. Corporeal Hereditaments 2. metal detector in a park owned by Waverly Borough Council. The repairing covenant within Jacks lease creates a very interesting situation in this circumstance. Sourcebook on Obligations and Legal Remedies (Cavendish, 1995) p 98 It states that the creation or transfer of a legal estate must be by deed. Milsom, S F C Ian Fletcher, a metal detector enthusiast, went to Farnham Park owned by Waverly Borough Council to use his metal detector to see if he could find any items of interest. 29 See generally Jones op cit pp 9297; Bouchon-Meunier, B and Nguyen, HT Google Scholar. If you are the original writer of this problem question and no longer wish to have your work published on LawTeacher.net then please: Our academic writing and marking services can help you! White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455 194. Chapter 4 What is the institutional legacy? International & Comparative Legal Quarterly Chapter 6 How do legal reasoners treat facts? Judges, Legislators and Professors: Chapters in European Legal History (Cambridge, 1987) p 5365 Donoghue v Coombe (1987) 45 SASR 330: damaged motorbike in bush taken to be abandoned. Jones, J W occupiers? The legal framework governing the discovery and extraction of mineral deposits is based on finders, keepers, in that it becomes the property of the finder, subject to state royalties. "useRatesEcommerce": true 140 There are situations and types of damage where the distinction between the nature of the obligations can be important: see eg Les pistmologies constructivistes (Presses Universitaires de France, 1995) pp 7983 When a contract is formed it must be established whether it is a bilateral or unilateral contract. 4 0 obj 185 See eg Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] 1 AC 310. endobj La pense juridique avant et aprs le Code civil (Herms, 2nd edn, 1991) p 117 Legal System Between Order and Disorder (Oxford, 1994; trans I Stewart) p 105 However, one should note the reality: M Lasser Judicial (Self-) Portraits: Judicial Discourse in the French Legal System (1995) 104 Yale Law Journal 1325. And item which constitutes treasure under this act belongs to the state. 17 Treasure Act 1996, s 1(1)(a) 18 Treasure Act 1996, s 1(1)(b) & 2(1) 19 Treasure Act 1996, s 8. Google Scholar; 'As Lord Millett explained in Harrow London Borough Council v Qazi, paras 108-109, the court is "merely the forum for the determination of the civil right in dispute between . 115 Where treasure is found unconcealed, title vests in a finder, in the absence of the owner. Land & buildings - rights in rem, because the claimant would wish to recover the land if there was a legal altercation. Cf The Anderson Group Pty Ltd v Tynan Motors Ltd (2006) 65 NSWLR 400; [2006] 86 See eg Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge (no2) (2002, Knightsbridge Estates Trust Ltd v Bryne (1939, Cheltenham & Gloucester BS v Norgan (1996, Palk v Mortgage Services Funding plc (1993, Return to Land Law Concentrate 7e Student Resources. 756 The recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Waverley Borough Council v. Fletcher clarifies the law relating to those who use metal detectors to find abandoned chattels upon or buried in the land of another, but does so by drawing a fine distinction which may prove difficult to apply in practice. FA & AB Ltd v Lupton [1972] AC 634 at 658659. 113 See eg Bryunt v Herbert (1877) 3 CPD 389. 19 See eg If the same reasoning as in Elwes v Briggs Gas Company is applied here, it seems reasonable to suggest that the covenant in the lease would only extend to allow Jack to sell items that could reasonably be contemplated as those that he could remove under the covenant. % It also seems likely that the spoon will theoretically be Jacks landlords property, but here its status as treasure may mean that Tom could be entitled to a share of any reward that is paid in respect of its discovery. The starting point for this consideration is that, in ordinary circumstances, nobody has a stronger interest in property than the true owner of it.8 The true owner in this context would be Hanksy and therefore, on this basis, when the painting was painted on the property the owner of the property took possession of it and became what is known as a bailee.9 As such, the landlord had a duty to retain and take reasonable care of the painting until such time as the real owner can be found or makes a claim for the property.10 The issue in this context is whether Hanksy is the real owner of the painting. 145 This is just what Blackstone did to some extent in his Commentaries: Lobban op cit p 34, 3839. This article will aim to give an insight into five property law cases which have shaped English property law. The Coroner decided that it was not treasure trove. History of Private Law op cit pp 245, 254255, 341353Google Scholar. Property Law Waverly Borough Council v Fletcher [1995] 4 All ER 756 Facts A gold brooch is found under the ground by a man with a metal detector in a park. Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly van de Kerchove, M and Ost, F If the spoon is considered to be treasure, the Secretary of State is able to decide whether it ought to be placed in a museum and whether the museum ought to pay a reward.23 The important point for Tom in this circumstance, is that where a chance find of treasure is made by a person who is not looking for it, but has permission to be on the land where the treasure is found, the Secretary of State has a discretion to divide any reward between the landowner and the party who finds the treasure.24 The result of this is that Tom may be entitled to some payment for his find. If the finder is trespassing then objects found belong to the landowner (Waverley Borough Council v Fletcher (1996)). Winfield, P H Legrand, P How to Compare Now (1996) 16 Which one of the following was NOT a form of free tenure? 76 Let us note that legal science is characterised from a methodological point of view by the fact of describing atypical objects, legal norms, which are nothing other than prescriptive propositions. Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605. 176 Penner op cit p 3. 207 For a recent example where property notions (possession and ownership) are dependent upon the obligations notion of trespass see Waverley BC v Fletcher [1996] QB 334. 9 215 See eg Weir Casebook op cit pp 646648. 39 Looking for a flexible role? 64 Le cerveau et l'esprit (Presses Universitaires de France, 1995) p 37 Google Scholar. 65 Moffat v Kazana (1960) correct incorrect * not completed. And in the past things were different: see eg Oxford University Press, 2023. La systmique sociale (Presses Universitaires de France, 1993) p 37 A right to a scenic view is not capable of being an easement. D, E, F and G hold legal title as joint tenants on trust for D as a tenant in common as to three-fifths and E, F, G and H as tenants in common as to one-tenth each. Treitel, G H In other words, the owner or occupier of the land will only be able to exert their right to possession against the finder if they (the owner or occupier) took . Bechtel, W and Abrahamsen, A 12 AL Hamblin Equipment Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (1974) 131 CLR 570; Munday v ACT (1998) 99 LGERA 312; [1998] ACTSC 62: scavengers as finders re items at rubbish One is reminded, of course, of Ockham and the debate between nominalism and universalism: Google Scholar. 155 Google Scholar. Personal Property Law (London: Blackstone, 2nd edn, 1996) pp 89 Title: Waverly Borough Council v Fletcher [1995] 4 All ER 756 - 03-13-2018 Created Date: 4/2/2018 3:47:09 AM In other words, the covenant is such that it prevents the landlord complaining that the painting has been removed, but is insufficient to cause Jack to hold greater title to it than the landlord.7. 218 See eg 121 Share this case study Like this case study Waverley Borough v Fletcher [1995] 4 All ER play stop mute In order to consider this point, it will be necessary, despite the links that exist, to consider the items in turn. NSWCA 22. Copyright 2023 StudeerSnel B.V., Keizersgracht 424, 1016 GC Amsterdam, KVK: 56829787, BTW: NL852321363B01, Students shared 111 documents in this course, Essay "Possession in Anglo-Australian Law" - grade 70%, Property A Essay Possession is nine tenths of the law, Essay "The Law of Finding in Australia" - grade C, Property Law A Exam Notes. 54 On which see generally Jones Historical Introduction to the Theory of Law op cit. M.F.M. 45 He reported his findings and a coroners inquiry unattached to land as against owner. ; Philippens H.M.M.G. See also Durand, D CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The result of this being that Jack could be considered to have no choice but to take steps to have the painting removed and, in doing so, repair the property. Jack a businessman, rents an office with a long lease. Google Scholar. 228 P Legrand How to Compare Now (1996) 16 Legal Studies 232, 238. 4 Strmholm, S It exercised control over the Park by means of a ranger and his staff and by bye-laws. To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: UK law covers the laws and legislation of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Council sued him for the brooch . Astolfi, J-P and Develay, M 188 Later Jill arrives, who works with Jack, notices the picture and says, thats a Hanksy, could be worth some cash. Jack immediately phones Tom, an art dealer, who confirms Jills suspicion. Waverley BC v Fletcher 1996 QB 334: owner or lawful possessor of land owned all that was in or attached to it. Published: 18th Jun 2019. A purchaser of registered land may be deemed to have notice of a restrictive covenant, not entered as a notice on the charges register, by virtue of it amounting to an overriding interest under Sch 3 para 2. 102 52 Parker v British Airways Board [1982] 1 AII ER 834; Chairman NCA v Flack (1998) 86 FCR 16; (1998) 156 ALR 501; Wiley v Synan (1937) 57 CLR 200; Waverley Borough Council v The defendant, lawfully in a public park, unlawfully used a metal detector to detect a gold brooch buried in the ground. 153 See eg Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 QB 394. Certainty of term, exclusive possession, and rent, Certainty of term, exclusive possession, and creation by deed, Certainty of term and exclusive possession, Bruton v London & Quadrant Housing Trust (2000, The covenant must touch and concern the land. Logique juridique: Nouvelle rhorique (Dalloz, 2nd edn, 1979)Google Scholar; Bergel op cit pp 261286; Lloyd's Introduction to Jurisprudence (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 6th edn, 1994) p 6 Waverley BC v Fletcher [1996] QB 334. Actes juridiques, droits subjectifs (Litec, 1992) p 177 the finding. A further analogy could be drawn with the law on theft, where property does not belong to another if it has been abandoned.12 Indeed, even if Hanksy attempts to assert that the painting has not been abandoned, it is difficult to see the nature of any right he could assert over it. To make such a suggestion would suggest that he was prevented from disposing of it by throwing it away without the landlords permission. 116 The Roman law influence of non-contractual actions based on wrongs came largely through Blackstone: Google Scholar. Granger, G-G Expert Systems in Law (Oxford, 1987) p 173 What does it mean to be a child in this modern era? In this circumstance, if the spoon appears to have been recently lost, its true owner will come forward and retake possession of it. 119 Lindley LJ even went as far as implying that English law conformed more or less to the pattern to be found in Justinian's Institutes: Taylor v Manchester, Sheffield & Lincolnshire Rly [1895] 1 QB 134 at 138. use and Mr Fletcher was a lawful visitor to the park. Lord Denning MR appeared to contradict his view on parasitic damages in Jackson v Horizon Holidays Ltd [1975] 1 WLR 1468. Waverley BC v Fletcher [1996] QB 334 I - d found a medieval gold brooch in a public park using a metal detector. Conversely, it could equally be suggested that if, for example, Jack removed and replaced a broken window from the property, it would be odd if he was prevented from selling the broken window. Your current browser may not support copying via this button. Chapter 1 pages 6/4/04 9:13 am Page 24 In this circumstance the finders interest take precedence over the landowners.16 The reasoning behind this distinction appears to be on the basis that where items have not been recently lost, the law looks for a new owner, that being the landowner. Google Scholar. 21 Teubner, G Evans|LJ in Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Birmingham City Council [1996] 3WLR 1139, 11421143 If it is the latter, as mentioned, the Crown will disclaim title to it22 and title will revert to the landowner. than all others, save for the true owner. Dworkin, R Alexy, R activities, which would discourage searching and result in lower exploration and lower income. Google Scholar. 69 Stein Development of the Institutional System op cit pp 157158. Remedies of English Law (London: Butterworth, 2nd edn, 1980) pp 147160 Chapter 12 Should jurists take interests more seriously (continued)? Whether a Bilateral or Unilateral Contract. Stein, P The defendant found a brooch and reported this to the authorities. Google Scholar. Google Scholar. 31 Oxford, 1961. 28 This case considered the issue of the rights of possession and finders keepers and whether or not a man who found a valuable brooch underneath the ground in a park using a metal detector had superior rights over the council who owned the park. 46 A Short History of Western Legal Theory (Oxford, 1992) pp 271277 A (Children) (in re) [2001] 2 WLR 480 297, Aerial Advertising Co v Batchelor' Peas Ltd [1938] 2 All ER 788 227, AIB Group (UK) Plc v Mark Redler & Co Solicitors [2014] UKSC 58 233, Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] AC 789 235, 296297, Al Rawi v The Security Services [2012] 1 AC 531 317, 319, 325, 326, Ashley v Chief Constable of Sussex Police [2008] 1 AC 962; 2 WLR 975 105, Ashworth Hospital Authority v MGN Ltd [2001] 1 WLR 515 323324, Asnah Bte Ab Rahman v Li Jianlin [2016] 4 LRC 165 322, Attica Sea Carriers Corporation v Ferrostaal [1976] 1 Ll Rep 250 282, Attorney-General v Blake [2001] 1 AC 268 126127, 253, Attorney-General v Guardian Newspapers [1987] 1 WLR 1248 319, Attorney-General v PYA Quarries Ltd [1957] 2 QB 169 106, Baird Textiles Holdings Ltd v Marks & Spencer plc [2001] 1 All ER (Comm) 737 227, Banque Bruxelles Lambert SA v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd [1997] AC 191 152, Barclays Bank Plc v OBrien [1993] QB 109; [1994] 1 AC 180 109, 242, Barker v Corus UK Ltd [2006] 2 AC 572 158159, Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969] 1 QB 428 152, Benedetti v Sawiris [2014] AC 938 123, 141, 251, Best v Samuel Fox & Co Ltd [1952] AC 716 234, Beswick v Beswick [1966] Ch 538 (CA); [1968] AC 58 314, Birmingham CC v Oakley [2001] 1 AC 617 190, 213, Blackpool & Fylde Aero Club Ltd v Blackpool BC [1990] 1 WLR 1195 101, 149, 182, 215, 227, 312, Bradford Corporation v Pickles [1895] AC 587 310, Brooks v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2005] 1 WLR 1495 187, Brunsden v Humphrey (1884) 14 QBD 141 114, Burris v Azadani [1995] 1 WLR 1372 113, 128, 311, 325, 326, Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256 101, Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd [2009] 1 AC 1101 247, Chief Constable of Kent v V [1983] 1 QB 34 292, Camelot Group Plc v Centaur Communications Ltd [1999] QB 124 319, Constantine v Imperial Hotels Ltd [1944] KB 693 128, Constantine (Joseph) SS Ltd v Imperial Smelting Corporation [1942] AC 154 137, 227, Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd v Argyll Stores Ltd [1998] AC 1 110, 227, 282, 322, Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 310, Crawford Adjusters (Cayman) Ltd v Sagicor General Insurance (Cayman) Ltd [2014] AC 366 111, Crilly (Derek) v T & G Farrington Ltd and John O'Connor [2001] 3 IR 251 98, D v East Berkshire Community NHS Trust [2005] 2 AC 373 187, 305, 306, Davis Contractors Ltd v Fareham UDC [1956] AC 696 236237, Dies v British & International Mining & Finance Corporation [1939] 1 KB 724 149, Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 231, 238, 245, 266, Douglas v Hello! 210 It is particularly important with respect to real security: Chapter 5 What is the legal literature legacy? "corePageComponentUseShareaholicInsteadOfAddThis": true, 125 See eg Contractual licences never bind third parties and do not have proprietary status. Waverley BC v Fletcher [1996] Public park owned by council; defendant found medieval brooch (35k) under soil using metal detector. the surface. In other words, does any other individual possess greater title to the painting or the spoon than Tom? Property Value; dbo:abstract: Waverley Borough Council v Fletcher [1995] 4 All ER 756 is an English Court of Appeal case. There is a bit of room to move here Google Scholar. Google Scholar. Samuel, G Science, Law and History: Historical Jurisprudence and Modern Legal Theory (1990) 41 Google Scholar. Testimonianze sulla storia della Magistratura italiana (Orazio Abbamonte), Auditing (Robyn Moroney; Fiona Campbell; Jane Hamilton; Valerie Warren), Financial Reporting (Janice Loftus; Ken J. Leo; Noel Boys; Belinda Luke; Sorin Daniliuc; Hong Ang; Karyn Byrnes), Principles of Marketing (Philip Kotler; Gary Armstrong; Valerie Trifts; Peggy H. Cunningham), Financial Institutions, Instruments and Markets (Viney; Michael McGrath; Christopher Viney), Lawyers' Professional Responsibility (Gino Dal Pont), Australian Financial Accounting (Craig Deegan). 201 Samuel Foundations op cit pp 147154, 199202. The Human Measure: Social Thought in the Western Legal Tradition (Harvard, 1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. see also: Elwes v Briggs Gas Co. Treasure Act 1996. 1. Remedies for Breach of Contract (Oxford, 1988) p 245 The park was open to the public for leisure and recreational Where, as mentioned above, an item is found attached to land, it becomes the property of the landowner ahead of that of the party who finds it.15 There are two exceptions to this position however. Essays, case summaries, problem questions and dissertations here are relevant to law students from the United Kingdom and Great Britain, as well as students wishing to learn more about the UK legal system from overseas. Final Exam 2018, questions and answers. Failing this, and subject to the true owners' title being abandoned or otherwise extinguished at Published online by Cambridge University Press: 114 Baker op cit pp 379400. South Staffordshire Water Co v Sharman [1896] 2 QB 44; City of London v Appleyard [1963] 2 AII ER 834; Ranger v Giffen (1968) 87 WN 1 NSW 531. Google Scholar. Ltd (No 3) [2008] 1 AC 1 318, 319, Drake v Thos Agnew & Sons Ltd [2002] EWHC 294 199, Duport Steels Ltd v Sirs [1980] 1 WLR 142 319, Dutton v Bognor Regis UDC [1972] 1 QB 372 109, Edgington v Fitzmaurice (1884) 29 Ch D 459 215, Esso Petroleum Ltd v Commissioners of Custom and Excise [1976] 1 WLR 1 253255, Esso Petroleum Ltd v Southport Corporation [1953] 3 WLR 773 (QBD); [1954] 2 QB 182 (CA); [1956] AC 218 (HL) 112, 149, 231, 268269, Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2003] 1 AC 32 157, 158, 173, 184, 304, Four Seasons Holdings Inc v Brownlie [2017] UKSC 80 221, Genossenschaftsbank v Burnhope [1995] 1 WLR 1580 255, Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd [1936] AC 85 238, Gulf Oil (GB) Ltd v Page [1987] Ch 327 311, Hall (Arthur JS) & Co v Simons (a firm) [2002] 1 AC 615 318, Hannah Blumenthal (the) see Paal Wilson & Co A/S v Partenreederei Hannah Blumenthal, Hedley Byrne & Co v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465 129, 130, HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic [2012] UKSC 25; [2012] 4 All ER 539 108, Hickman v Peacey [1944] Ch 138; [1945] AC 304 164, 244, Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] AC 53 187, Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett [1936] 2 KB 468 101, 310, Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co [1970] AC 1004 93, 227, 241242, Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] AC 655 280, Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 WLR 896 247, IRC v National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1982] AC 617 303, Jackson v Horizon Holidays Ltd [1975] 1 WLR 1468 108, 128, 315, Jolley v Sutton LBC [2000] 1 WLR 1082 227, Keppel Bus Co v Sa'ad bin Ahmad [1974] 2 All ER 700 227, Kitchen v Royal Air Force Association [1958] 1 WLR 563 192193, L (A Child) (in re) [2001] 2 WLR 339 322, 325, Les Laboratoires Servier v Apotex Inc [2014] UKSC 55; [2014] 3 WLR 1257 293, Lion Laboratories Ltd v Evans [1984] 2 All ER 417 319, Lockett v A & M Charles Ltd [1938] 4 All ER 170 245, Lupton v FA & AB Ltd [1972] AC 634 93, 94, 144, 240, 242, 266, Macaura v Northern Assurance Co [1925] AC 619 321, Manchester Airport Plc v Dutton [2000] 1 QB 133 227, Marc Rich & Co v Bishop Rock Marine Co Ltd [1996] 1 AC 211 227, McGhee v National Coal Board [1973] 1 WLR 1 155, McKew v Holland & Hannen & Cubitts [1969] 3 All ER 1621 152, Mercedes Benz AG v Leiduck [1996] 1 AC 284 113, Metcalfe v Britannia Ironworks Co (1876) 1 QBD 613 142, Miller v Jackson [1977] QB 966 165, 191, 207208, 273277, 325, 326, Milton Keynes BC v Nulty [2013] 1 WLR 1183 161162, 245, M'Lean v Clydesdale Banking Co (1883) 9 App Cas 95 142, Mogul SS Co v McGregor, Gow & Co [1892] AC 25 102, Mohamud v Morrisson Supermarkets plc [2016] UKSC 11 227, Moorgate Mercantile Ltd v Twitchings [1977] AC 890 234, 326, National Telephone Co v Baker [1893] 2 Ch 186 264, Norwich Pharmacal Co v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1974] AC 133 74, 324, Paal Wilson & Co A/S v Partenreederei Hannah Blumenthal [1983] 1 AC 854; [1982] 3 WLR 49 (CA) 237, Palmer v Wick & Pulteneytown SS Co [1894] AC 318 138, Parker v British Airways Board [1982] QB 1004 227, 299, ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67; [2016] AC 1172 292, 315317, 323, 325, Pharmaceutical Society of G.B. You have some unanswered questions. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784712617.00006. FACTS: A brooch was found buried in the ground of a public park owned by the council by a member of the public, using a metal detector. While Tom was removing the picture he tripped on a mound of dirt by the wall. A purchaser of unregistered land will be deemed to have notice of a pre-1925 restrictive covenant only where he has actual knowledge of its existence. Feature Flags: { The defendant found a brooch and reported this to the authorities. 59 One exception might be: Do you really want to submit? Google Scholar. An Introduction to English Legal History (London: Butterworth, 3rd edn, 1990) pp 6381 The brooch belonged to the Council as owners of the land in