Flack v Hudson [2000] EWCA Civ 360 (06 November 2000)

Police lawfully seized a briefcase of cash from Mrs Flack's home. The true owner was never found, and no one was prosecuted. Mrs Flack, the occupier, successfully claimed the money, establishing an occupier's superior title to found chattels.

Facts

Mrs Caroline Flack, the claimant, was the tenant of a house in Essex. She lived alone but her adult son and his daughter were frequent visitors, and her son possessed a key. On 11th May 1995, police executed a search warrant at her home in relation to suspected drug offences. During the search, an officer discovered a locked briefcase in a high cupboard in the main bedroom. Mrs Flack denied any knowledge of the briefcase. Upon being opened, it was found to contain £41,310 in cash. The police seized the money under their powers pursuant to the Police (Property) Act 1897. Mrs Flack was never charged with any offence, and while her son was suspected, no prosecution against him or anyone else was pursued in relation to the money. The true owner of the money was never identified. After the investigation concluded, Mrs Flack requested the return of the money, asserting her right as the occupier of the premises where it was found. The police refused, leading to legal action.

Issues

The primary legal issue was whether the occupier of a private dwelling (Mrs Flack), who was unaware of the existence of a chattel found on her premises, had a superior right to possession of that chattel over the police, who had lawfully taken it but whose statutory right to retain it had expired. A crucial sub-issue was whether an occupier must have knowledge of an item to manifest the necessary intention to possess (animus possidendi) everything within their home.

Judgment

The Court of Appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision, found in favour of Mrs Flack. The court affirmed that an occupier of a private residence is presumed to exercise control over all items within that residence, thereby establishing a superior claim to any found items over a finder. This holds true even if the occupier was unaware of the item’s existence prior to its discovery.

The judgment relied heavily on precedents such as Parker v British Airways Board [1982] QB 1004 and South Staffordshire Water Co v Sharman [1896] 2 QB 44. The court distinguished between items found on public land and those found within a private home.

Lord Justice Kennedy stated:

As the occupier of a private house, and in control of it, the plaintiff in my judgment had a superior right to the briefcase and its contents over the defendant which was not displaced by the fact that the briefcase was found by a police officer exercising his powers of search. That is so even though she did not know of the existence of the briefcase until it was found by the police.

Lord Justice Sedley further clarified the legal principle regarding the occupier’s intention to possess:

It is not a case of an occupier’s animus possidendi being presumed unless a contrary intention is proved. It is a case of the law presuming, from the fact of occupation of a private home, the occupier’s intention to control all its contents. The presumption is a strong one… It can only be rebutted if the finder can show that as a matter of fact the occupier’s intention to control the contents of the house was absent. A very clear case would be needed to do this.

The court concluded that Mrs Flack, as the householder, had a manifest intention to exercise control over her home and all items within it, giving her a better title to the money than the police, whose statutory authority to hold it had ceased.

Implications

The decision in Flack v Hudson is significant for the law of property concerning found items (‘finders keepers’). It firmly establishes that the occupier of a private dwelling has a superior claim to any chattels found within that dwelling, even against the person who physically finds them. The case clarifies that this right is not dependent on the occupier’s prior knowledge of the object. It creates a strong legal presumption that a person in control of a private home intends to possess all of its contents, providing legal certainty and reinforcing the proprietary rights associated with home occupation.

Verdict: The appeal by the police was dismissed, and the original judgment in favour of Mrs Flack, entitling her to the return of the money, was upheld by the Court of Appeal.

Source: Flack v Hudson [2000] EWCA Civ 360 (06 November 2000)