Finding
Treasure Trove Doctrine
when applicable
true owner not forthcoming
found on or in land
if of national importance
is client a trespasser
nature of the land
where was it found
avove
under
on
state owns it if its off national importance if owner is not certain
up to archaelogist to determine if off national importance
Webb v Ireland permission to enter land, used metal detector and began to dig (trespass now), found hoard of treasure, reach out to museum who says will be treated honourably, offered 10k were expecting more
SC - concept of treasure trove still exists- soverienty declared in 1937 constitution - state entitlement to items of national importance
entitled to some award due to legitimate expectation - 25k each
Elwes v Briggs tenant found prehistoric boat under surface - belonged to land owner (freehold owner) 6 feet
national importance
if not doctrine of finding applies
if found under does belong to freehold owner
some exceptions under article 10 of constitution such as natrual resources (water, mines)
finders keepers
Parker v British Airways found gold bracelet on floor of airport lounge, handed into British airways, asked for it back if true owner not forthcoming, BA kept it and sold it- he was entitled to it - BA normally tried and disclaim liability - would have need to show obvious intention to control lounge and everything in it
Armory v Delamarie chimney sweeper found valuable ring in chimney and took it to jeweller - he was entitled to it
Waverly Borough Council v Fletcher medieval gold brooch found in public park, 9 inches deep, deep enough therefore freeholders entitled to claim ownership
intention to control
NCA v Flack police entered house, found bag of money in sons room, lady didn't know was their but had a clear intention to control everything in house
Hanna v Peale soldier staying in house during WW2, owner no knowledge of brooch which soldier found - no control of premises - soldier superior claim
Webb innocent trespass (had permission to be there but trespassed when began to dig), entitled to some compensation
if attached or fixxed to the land
generally if affixed to land form part of the land therefore landowner owns
Leigh v Taylor tapestries easily removed so not part of land
Hulme v Brigham 6 valuable printers not considered part of land