Personal Property Law
Personal Property Law
PERSONAL PROPERTY
THE MEANING OF PROPERTY
‘Property’ in Everyday Speech: Refers to things that are owned and which therefore make up
wealth, e.g. ‘a person of property’ or a ‘propertied person’. Property can be either an object or
thing, which is capable of being owned by a person, or the proprietary rights (rights of ownership)
to that object or thing.
‘Property’ as a Legal Term: When lawyers use the word ‘property’ they may be referring to an
object of ownership but they may also be referring to the rights of ownership. Examples of
property in the first sense are land, cars, ships, shares in a company, government bonds,
copyrights and patents.
Property can be either an object or thing, which is capable of being owned by a person, or the
proprietary rights (rights of ownership) to that object or thing. (Osborne, 1983)
Property can refer to a ‘thing’ or to legal rights in respect of a ‘thing’.
The ‘thing’ may be tangible (goods) or intangible (copyright or patents).
Even a legal right to sue someone else is an item of property in law.
1. Real Property (Realty) comprises land, and all things embedded or attached to it with an
intention to remain fixed (fixtures), such as minerals, trees and buildings.
2. Personal Property is all property that is not real property; includes tangible things that are
movable such as a car, books etc. which are generally referred to as chattels. These are also
referred to as choses in possession as they are capable of actual physical possession.
It also includes property of an intangible nature, that is, property which does not exist in a
physical form but which has economic value such as intellectual property rights, debts, shares in
a company and negotiable instruments. These are referred to as choses in action, as they are
not capable of actual physical possession yet give rise to rights that are enforceable by taking
legal action (the legal right to sue somebody).
The distinction between Real Property (lands, tenements and hereditaments) and Personal
Property (goods and chattels) developed from the different remedies available to the owner.
Are tangible forms of personal property, which have physical form, e.g. a car, a piano, and
typewriter. They also give rise to legal issues such as acquisition of title by finding, fixtures, and
reservation of title clauses, bailments and the creation of security interests in goods.
2. Choses in Action
Are ‘all personal rights of property which can only be claimed or enforced by action, and not by
taking physical possession’: Torkington v Magee [1902] 2 KB 427.
A chose in action is often described as a bundle of rights. Examples of choses in action are
intangible property such as:
A partner’s interest in the assets of the partnership
Shares in a company
Debts
Payments - Negotiable interests (cheques, promissory notes, Bills of Exchange)
An insurance policy
The benefit a creditor enjoys under a guarantee given by a guarantor
In addition to legal choses in action, there are equitable choses in action, that is, claims
enforceable only in courts of equity as distinct from rights enforceable by action in the common
law courts. Examples of equitable choses are:
2|
UTS: Commercial Law - 2014
Contrasting Property Rights (in rem): property rights enforceable against the world at large v
Personal Rights (in personam): personal rights enforceable against other party in the contract or
individual only, e.g. tort claim).
Ownership
The legal rights called ‘property’ refer to ownership. Ownership – “the right to exclusive
enjoyment of a thing” (Austin)
Ownership may include the right to use, sell, give away, put into a trust, use as security
for loan, share with co-owners, and leave in will.
To possess property means to have exclusive control (or dominion) over the item and an
intention to exclude all others, subject to the rights of the owner or person who holds title.
Possession
1. INTENTION: animus (mental element)
2. CONTROL: corpus (physical element)
The physical and mental elements must coincide if there is to be possession in law. (Button v
Cooper)
Possession describes a physical relationship between a person and a thing. This is often
referred to as actual possession.
Burden rests on the intending dispossessor to prove a better right than the presumptive
right of the present possessor.
A person has possession of an object if he has control of it and intends to exclude
others from the exercise of control. Possession confers a right to retain control of an
object against any other person except the person who has rights of ownership in the
property. This is often referred to as legal possession or possessory title.
Possession signifies ownership, the entitlement of lost property.
It is a source of remedy once the right of possession has been interfered with, e.g.
detinue, trespass and conversion.
TYPES OF POSSESSION
There are three types of possession of goods:
ATTRITUBES OF POSSESSION
3|
UTS: Commercial Law - 2014
Hierarchy of Possession
I. Owner
II. Possessor
III. The rest of the world
Early title documents may be hard to find and decipher, this gave reason to why the courts
established a rule that required vendors of land to trace back a chain of title only for
60 years. This was one way of satisfying the task of proving ownership beyond all doubt.
Another way was the notion that a possessory interest can ripen into a title – which cannot
be challenged even by the historical owner, after a sufficient period of time has passed. In
this case, the possessory ownership becomes unchallengeable and someone in
possession cannot be sued for recovery of the property. This was expressed in the
statement by the Privy Council in Perry v Clissold at 79:
‘It cannot be disputed that a person in possession of land in the assumed character of owner and
exercising peaceably the ordinary rights of ownership has a perfectly good title against all the world but
that rightful owner. And if the rightful owner does not come forward and assert this title by process of law
within the period prescribed by the provisions of the Statute of Limitations applicable to the case, his right
is forever extinguished, and the possessory owner acquires an absolute title.’
HELD: The Privy Council held that the person was not a mere trespasser but had possessory title:
1. Which was valid against all but the rightful owner; and
2. Which was in the process of becoming (by reason of the passing of time) valid even against the rightful
owner.
4|
UTS: Commercial Law - 2014
Accordingly compensation was payable to that person by the resuming authority, the Minister.
These two principles were accepted in Australia in Wheeler v Baldwin (1934) and Allen v Roughley
(1955) as applying to land under the ‘old system title’.
HELD: The Court of Appeal held that the council had the better right to the brooch, as it had been found
within or attached to the land rather than on the surface it belonged to the person who owned the soil. The
finder was trespassing. The English Court of Appeal reiterated the general principle that ‘the lawful
possession of land includes possession of everything in the land.’ The court then restated the two main
principles: 1. Where an object is found in or attached to the land, the owner or lawful possessor of the
land has better title to the object than the finder. 2. Where an object is not in or attached to the land, the
owner or lawful possessor of the land has a better title only if he has exercised such control over the land
as to indicate an intention to control it and anything found on it.
ISSUES: Whether Mrs Flack, as occupier and tenant, manifested the sufficient intention to exercise
control over all chattels – and in this case the briefcase – found on her premises. The NCA argued that
Mrs Flack had no possessory title, and although the rules of possession generally state that Mrs Flack by
virtue of her residential tenancy, would have possession and control over the premises and all chattels
within them – even without having an awareness of all chattels within her property. However, in this case,
the NCA argued that based on the facts and the circumstances, Mrs Flack had no title over the briefcase
or the cash.
HELD: The Court held that the rights of the owner/occupier of premises on which goods are found will
prevail over the rights of the finder, regardless of whether the occupier knew of the existence of the
goods. However, the occupier must have demonstrated an intention to exercise control over the premises
5|
UTS: Commercial Law - 2014
in which the goods are located. Ultimately, the Federal Court found in favour of Mrs Flack and ruled that
she had a superior title to the briefcase and its contents when compared with the NCA. Furthermore, the
briefcase could have only been retained up until the completion of a police investigation, and since no
legal action was ever initiated against, Glen, Mrs Flack was then entitled to have the briefcase and its
contents returned to her according to the Federal Court. What this case illustrates, is the importance of
control over a thing when determining possessory rights. Despite the fact that Mrs Flack was not the true
owner of the suitcase, or that she had knowledge of the briefcase and its contents, this did not change the
fact that her rights to possession were superior to the NCA, and the Federal Court ruled accordingly.
Distinguish from mere custody over goods – where there is no intention to retain control there
is no possession: Knapp v Knapp.
FINDING: Who has better possessory title – finder or occupier of land upon which goods are
found?
The old case of Armory v Delamirie established the basic principle at common law that the
finder has best title against all except the true owner. Not absolute title, merely possessory.
HELD: The court held however that while a finder of goods does not acquire absolute property in or
ownership of them, his actual possession is some evidence of ownership and will be effective against the
whole world except a person who can prove that he has a better title. Since the goldsmith could not prove
a better title than the boy’s he failed.
6|
UTS: Commercial Law - 2014
HELD: The court held in favour of the plaintiff for the reason that he had proved that he was the true
owner of that money. The finders or occupiers have the best title to the ‘found’ items against the whole
world except the true owners.
HELD: The court found for the finder, holding that there is a “general right of a finder to any article which
has been lost as against all the world except the true owner”. It was further noted that the banknotes had
never been in the custody of the shopkeeper nor within the protection of his house since the true owner
had not intentionally deposited or hided the notes in the shop.
HELD: The court held that the defendant had to have shown a manifest intention to exercise control of all
that had come into the premises. It was held that Parker had better possessory title than occupier at
the time of finding. Donaldson LJ principles at 1017-18:
Rights & obligations of the FINDER;
1. The finder of a chattel acquires no rights over it unless (a) it has been abandoned or lost and (b) he
takes it into his care and control.
2. The finder of a chattel acquires very limited rights over it if he takes it into his care and control with
dishonest intent or in the course of trespassing.
3. Subject to the foregoing and to point 4 below, a finder of a chattel, whilst not acquiring absolute
property or ownership in the chattel, acquires rights to keep it against all but the true owner or those in a
position to claim through the true owner or one who can assert a prior right to keep the chattel which was
subsisting at the time when the finder took the chattel into his care and control.
4. Unless otherwise agreed, any servant or agent who finds a chattel in the course of his employment ant
not wholly incidentally or collaterally thereto and who takes it into his care and control does so on behalf
of his employer or principle who acquires a finder’s right to the exclusion of those of the actual finder.
5. A person having a finders right has an obligation to take sure measures as in all the circumstances are
reasonable to acquaint the true owner of the finding and present whereabouts of the chattel and to care
for it meanwhile.
Rights and obligations of the OCCUPIER;
7|
UTS: Commercial Law - 2014
1. An occupier has rights superior to those of a finder over chattels attached to that land and an occupier
of a building has similar rights in respect of chattels attached to that building, whether in either case the
occupier is aware of its presence.
2. An occupier of a building has rights superior to those of a finder over chattels on or in, but not attached
to, that building if, but inly if, before the chattel is found, he has manifested an intention to exercise control
over the building and the things which may be on or in it.
3. An occupier who manifests and intention to exercise control over a building and the things which may
be on or in it so as to acquire rights superior to those of a finder is under an obligation to take such
measures as in all the circumstances are reasonable to ensure that lost chattels are found and, on their
being found, whether by him or a third party, to acquaint the true owner of the finding and to care for the
chattels meanwhile. The manifestation of intention may be express or implied from the circumstances
including, in particular, the circumstances that the occupier manifestly accepts or is obliged by law to
accept liability for chattels lost on his ‘premises’.
4. An ‘occupier’ or a chattel – e.g. a ship, motorcar, caravan or aircraft – is to be treated as if he were the
occupier of a building for the purposes of the foregoing rules.
HELD: Landlord was entitled to the boat. The boat was held by court to belong to the landowner. The
reason given was quite amazing: “Obviously the right of the original owner could not be established. [The
defendant] was in possession of the ground, not merely of the surface, but of everything that lay beneath
the surface down to the centre of the Earth, and consequently in possession of the boat.”
RULE: A landowner owns everything attached to or under the land, but not necessarily stuff lying on the
surface of the land even though the stuff is not possessed by someone else.
8|
UTS: Commercial Law - 2014
HELD: The court eventually comes to the rule above, and thus finds for the plaintiff. The soldier gets the
value of the brooch as he had a better claim to the brooch as the owner of the house didn’t know of its
existence and true owner of the brooch could not be found.
RULE OF LAW: There is a presumption that whenever something is found on a person’s land,
possession of that object is maintained by the landowner.
HELD: Judgment for Plaintiffs; P’s as freeholders of the land upon which the pool was situated, had the
right to forbid anyone from coming on to their land, and also, had the right to direct exactly how the pool
was to be cleaned. Further, that they had the right to direct the disposition of any item found during the
pool’s cleaning. The Court found this case to be one in which an item was found upon private property
when the property owner was unaware of its existence. This case is decided and distinguished from the
decisions of Armory v Delamirie and Bridges v Hawkesworth, infra, by the principle that possession of
land carries with it a de facto possession of everything that is upon the land, so long as the landowner
exercises his general power of ownership over the land and expresses intent to disallow interference from
others. Thus, the location of the pool, being private rather than public, was never outside of P’s general
power of ownership. In the case of Bridges v Hawkesworth, infra, the item in dispute was found in a
place that was opened to the public. In this case the pool and the land on which it sat was not opened to
the public, but was under the control of P. The Court found that where a person has control over land and
manifests an intention to prevent interference by others, any objects found on such land should be
presumed to be in the possession of the owner, regardless of whether the item is found by an employee
of the owner or by a stranger.
Where goods are found unattached, the occupier must show manifest intention
(obvious/apparent to the finder) to exercise control over anything lying unattached on the
land or in the building. Whether or not there was a manifest intention depends of the
circumstances - question of degree.
Brooch found on top of window in house under requisition, never been occupied:
Hannah v Peel
Money found on shop floor: Bridges v Hawkesworth
: Parker v British Airways
Drugs and cash found in a dilapidated, disused building: Tamworth Industries v A-G
9|
UTS: Commercial Law - 2014
HELD: The Court held that the occupier is, in the absence of a better title elsewhere,
entitled to the possession of objects, which are attached to or under the land.
Consequently, since the notes were in a wooden box within a safe built into the wall of the
old building, the safe formed part of the building. Yorkwin, being in lawful possession of the
building, were in actual possession of the safe, even though ignorant of its existence.
Although Yorkwin was entitled to possession as against the finders, the City of London
Corporation came forward and successfully claimed the ownership of the note based on a
term in the lease which granted them the right to any valuable objects found on the
premises.
10 |
UTS: Commercial Law - 2014
2. Acquisition by Gift
Person who gives the gift is the donor, and person who receives the gift is the
donee.
Gratuitous transfer of title in property usually given in family context.
Presumption is that all family dealings are not meant to attract legal
consequences.
Donee is entitled to full beneficial ownership of gift provided donor was not
placed under any undue influence/ unconscionable dealing when delivering
gift to donee.
Nolan v Nolan [2003]: ‘donor must not only part with possession of property,
but must relinquish all present and future dominion and control over it beyond
any power on his part to reclaim it’
Three elements need to be met:
11 |