LAWS101: Case Analysis 10

Slides: Today's lecture slides are available on the course page.
Practice Test Question: A practice test question on Janet and Air New Zealand is available.
- The IRAC approach in this question might look different, and the reasons for this will be explained.
Additional Practice Questions: Extra practice questions using previous test questions have been added for legal reasoning and IRAC practice.
Student Q&A: A student question and answer section will be available for IRAC and Finders questions. Students are encouraged to check this before emailing questions.

The case involves police finding money in a derelict building on land leased by Mr. Dodds through his company, Tamworth.
Mr. Dodds lives next door to the leased land.
The leased land includes derelict buildings, a pig farm, and a cornfield.
The public has unrestricted access to the cornfield and the derelict buildings. They pick corn and leave money in an honesty box.

The money was found in a hole in the floor of a derelict building.
The money was on or in the property, not attached to it.
The court ignored the fact that the money was likely drug money and that the finders were the police.

The lease was expired but still paid month by month, so Mr. Dodds was considered the occupier.
In an exam, you will be told whether someone is an owner or occupier.

The key question is whether Tamworth had a manifested intention to exercise control over the building and the items in it.
The judge referenced Lord Justice Donaldson and Parker, who referred to Lord Russell in Shaman: manifest intention to exercise control over the land and things in it.

Adjacent Properties: Mr. Dodd's private home and the Tamworth property are next to each other.
Wire Fence: The properties were enclosed by a wire fence, except for a small distance.
Public Access: Despite the fence, the public had reasonably free access.
Over 500 people per month picked maize.
There were no restrictions on access to the derelict buildings. No fences, barricades, or signs.
Mr. Dodds acknowledged that anyone could access the buildings and hide things there; he used them for storage.

High Control: Bank vault, private residential home.
Low Control: Public park with unrestricted access.
Tamworth is closer to the public park end of the spectrum due to unrestricted access.
The closer to the unrestricted end, the more obvious the intention to control needs to be.

The finder had the stronger claim.
There was no evidence showing the occupier's intention towards lost articles.
The derelict property was far removed from the fenced section of the private property.
The occupier failed to prove a manifest intention to exercise control over lost property.
Mr. Dodds accepted people coming and going, so his claim failed.

Whether an occupier of private property manifested an intention to exercise control over the property and the things on or in it, in order to have a stronger claim to an article found there than the finder, when the true owner cannot be found, if they have allowed unrestricted public access to the property.

No. Where there is unrestricted public access to a property, the occupier has not shown the required manifest intent to exercise control over the property and the things on or in it.

Similarities: Private property with public access. Owner had no control.
Differences: The shop could be locked, while the derelict buildings had more unrestricted access.

Similarities: Private property.
Differences: No general public access; only those stationed there could access the property. The owner had no control (non-occupying owner).

Similarities: Private property.
Differences: No access by the public. The finder was an employee there for a specific purpose.

Similarities: Private property, an occupier, lounge accessible to the public.
Differences: In Parker, access was only by a class of the public with some restriction. Tamworth had no restrictions at all.
In both cases, neither occupier could show any manifest intent to exercise control.

Location of Item: Example of an item found on or in the property, not attached, supporting finders keepers when items are not attached.
Level of Control: Example of being closer to the public park end of the spectrum.
No Manifest Intent: Example of no manifest intent being found.

The question is designed to simulate the type of question you might find in Term 3.
It goes over one page, providing more information to work with.
The question asks you to use your knowledge of finder's law to advise someone using IRAC.

The first four sub-issues can be dealt with in any order.
Sub-issues five and six must be dealt with in order due to the spectrum of control.
Use headings to make the answer clear.

Who is the finder? Janet.
What did she find? A ring.
Where did she find the ring? Air New Zealand lounge restroom by the basin.
Could the true owner be found? Not yet. Only one day has passed, which is likely insufficient time.
Who else is claiming? Air New Zealand as the occupier.
This scenario is similar to Parker.

Relevant Law: Ratio from Parker.
Application:
- Facts showing control:
  - Private property.
  - Restricted to a class of persons.
  - Physical separation from public terminal.
  - Security checks to enter.
  - Employees present.
- Facts showing less control:
  - High number of people coming and going.
  - Access granted upon payment (like Parker).
Reasoning by Analogy: Compare to cases that found finders keepers (Bridges, Hannah, Parker, Tamworth) and cases where the occupier/owner had a better claim.

This problem requires asking for further information about what's written on the signs.
Need to know the content of the signs and where they are located to assess manifest intent.
If there is a sign and it is manifested, Air New Zealand may have their claim but if it's not sufficient, then it is finders keepers.