In advising Miranda on her respective claims to the items she found in March 2015, the key authority is Qantas Airways Ltd v Smith, citing Alambie v Davis, Bertram v Heffernan and Stephen Pty Ltd v Swift.
DOES MIRANDA FULFIL THE ROLE OF THE FINDER?
Miranda’s claim is based on the common law principle that ‘the act of finding a chattel which has been lost and taking control of it gives the finder rights with respect of that chattel’, demonstrated in Alambie v Davis. In Qantas v Smith, where the High Court clarified that, (1) the item must be ‘abandoned or lost’, (2) the finder must ‘[take] it into [their] care and control’, and (3) that a finder’s rights are limited if they find the chattel with ‘dishonest intent or in the course of
…show more content…
Andrew does not, before or at the time Miranda hands him the brooch, express any intention to claim items found in his …show more content…
Though these manifestations, even in concert with the additional security requirements of the airport, didn’t rise to the sufficient manifest intention to claim title over found items, it is Andrew himself, not a third party, who puts in place additional security features. His security cameras and requirement for visitors to be escorted are additional manifestations of his own intention to control the gallery, distinct from Qantas’ collateral benefit in control of their lounge via Sydney Airport’s independent security measures. Moreover, the defendant in Qantas v Smith didn’t regularly check for lost property, or have any procedure in place to account for items on its premises. Andrew inspects items in his gallery daily, indicating deliberate intention to control objects within the building than displayed in the High Court claim. As such, the facts of Qantas v Smith are materially different.
This will require the court to further consider whether Andrew’s intention to control his gallery and the objects inside it rises to the requisite ‘manifest intention’ to claim rights over the brooch. Qantas v Smith doesn’t draw a clear line from which we can ascertain when measures taken will be sufficient for an occupier to claim lost
Merryman, John Henry. Thinking about the Elgin Marbles: Critical Essays on Cultural Property, Art, and Law. London: Kluwer Law International Ltd, 2000.
Tooher, Joycey, ‘Jubilant Jamie and the Elephant Egg: Acquisition of Title by Finding’ (1998) 6 Australian Property Law Journal 117
In order to highlight all aspects of People v. Smith, 470 NW2d 70, Michigan Supreme Court (1991) we must first discuss the initial findings of the Michigan Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals decision was based on the precedence of two similar court cases that created discussion concerning the admission of juvenile records into adult trials. Following the Court of Appeals, the Michigan Supreme Court entered the final decision on Ricky Smith’s motion for resentencing. The Michigan Supreme Court also conducted a thorough examination of People v. Jones, People v. McFarlin, and People v. Price to determine the outcome of Smith’s motion to be resentenced.
The Lilah R. vs. Anthony Smith case has several consequences for administration. First, it tells students that they are powerless in sexual harassment cases when facing school officials. The courts ruled that Lilah did not have enough evidence to support her claims of sexual harassment. However, the district found Mr. Smith guilty for “engaging in inappropriate and unprofessional behavior contrary to District policy.” Even though the district found him guilty, he was not removed from his position at the school. Lastly, the outcome in this case shows that the school supports sexual harassment. Again, Mr. Smith was allowed to keep his job even though he was found guilty by the district. This was also contradictory to the districts and state’s
9. Woodgate, R., Black, A., Biggs, J., Owens, D. (2003). Legal Studies for Queensland, Volume 1, ForthEdition, Legal Eagle Publications: Queensland. 10. Woodgate, R., Black, A., Biggs, J., Owens, D. (2003).
State of Queensland v B [2008] QSC 231 was a case heard in the Supreme Court of
practice in issue here is the payment to women employed as stewardesses of salaries lower than those paid to men serving as pursers for work found by the court to be substantially equal. Others are the provision to stewardesses of less desirable layover accommodations and allowances for maintenance of uniforms, and the imposition of weight restrictions upon stewardesses only (Laffey v. Northwest Airlines Inc P Laffey, 1976).
As for most union disputes, the results of a negotiation usually will end in one way. For Trans World Airlines (TWA), there was never happy moment. Although,TWA reigned as one of the largest airlines if it's time, it wasn't the most successful. Established in 1926, the airline experienced a multitude of changes that would deem the company to be unsuccessful. Later on in the companies history, a man named Carl Icahn invested $300 million into the company, mainly to have a control of the company. His goal was to lower the cost of labor by receiving pay concessions, which would increase employee productivity. This agreement would give pilots a 30% concession ($100 million) and a 15% concession ($50 million) for machinists. With these concessions,
In the case of “Leonel v. American Airlines, Inc. (AA), 400 F.3d 702 (9th Cir.2005)” (Melvin, 2013), on page 351 of The Legal Environment of Business: a Managerial Approach: Theory to Practice, “Leonel and two other applicants were given conditional offers of employment by American Airlines.” (Melvin, 2013); these offers were dependent on whether a background check and medical exam were passed. However, before the background checks could be conducted American Airlines directed Leonel and the other applicants to go to their facility and take medical exams and a health questionnaire. “Leonel and the other applicants were HIV-positive” (Melvin, 2013) and failed to divulge this on their questionnaires. The applicants’ tests came back HIV positive and resulted in AA retracting their offer. This leads “Leonel and
The finder does not prevail if (she/he) is a trespassing on the owner ‘s premises, the found property goes to the owner of the premises.
Brambles Holdings Ltd v Bathurst City Council [2001] NSWCA 61; (2001) n53 NSWLR 153, 171.
This case discussed the presumptions of adverse possession, and that it must be an actual possession, of the land or property, which is inconsistent with the rights of the true owner. It was also discussed certain circumstances which will determine the character and weight of the acts of occupation and user on which the claim is based. Vital considerations to determine the outcome of the case are; the location, the size and the use which an owner might make reasonably be expected. However as suggested in JA Pye, the only way in which the intention of the true owner to use the land for a particular purpose at a future date may become relevant is if the alleged possessor knows of such an
middle of paper ... ... kar (1989) FLR 313. [56] Skipton Building Society v. Clayton (1993) 25 HLR 596. [57] City of London Building Society v. Flegg (1988) AC 54. [58] Page 83, Land Law, Louisa Lidbetter. [59] Peffer v. Rigg (1977) 1 WLR 285.
The first point to note when analysing occupiers’ liability is that originally it was separate to the general principles of negligence which were outlined in Donoghue v Stevenson .The reason for this “pigeon hole approach” was that the key decision of occupiers’ liability, Indermaur v Dames was decided sixty six years prior to the landmark decision of Donoghue v Stevenson . McMahon and Binchy state the reason why it was not engulfed into general negligence, was because it “… had become too firmly entrenched by 1932 … to be swamped by another judicial cross-current” Following on from Indermaur v Dames the courts developed four distinct categories of entrant which I will now examine in turn.
Cooper v Wandsworth Board- Cooper built a house without permission. Board demolished house without giving C a chance to explain or remedy. Considerations of court: