City of London Corporation v Appleyard

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Date1963
Year1963
CourtQueen's Bench Division
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
8 cases
  • Daniel s/o D William v Luhat Wan and Others and Luhat Wan v Social and Welfare Services Lotteries Board and Others
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • January 1, 1990
  • Parker v British Airways Board
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • December 21, 1981
    ...control, but his defence failed. 24 South Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman was followed and applied by McNair J. in City of London Corporation v. Appleyard, (1963) 1 W.L.R., 982. There money was found in a safe let into one of the walls of a building by workmen who were demolishing that b......
  • Waverley Borough Council v Fletcher
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • July 13, 1995
    ...not be applicable." 19 A.L. Goodhart's analysis of Sharman and of the principle has powerful judicial support. In Corporation of London v. Appleyard [1963] 1 WLR 982, a dispute about entitlement to bank-notes found in a wall safe on a building site, McNair J. commented, at 987, on Lord Russ......
  • R v Michael Anthony Lewis
    • Australia
    • Supreme Court
    • June 30, 1989
    ...followed: Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 Cheatley v The Queen (1972) 127 CLR 291 City of London Corporation v Appleyard (1963) 1 WLR 982 Everall v Lozuet (1987) 30 A Crim R 207 Forbes v Traders Finance Corporation Ltd (1971) 126 DLR 429 Rein v Lane (1867) LR 2 QB 144 R v Good (......
  • Get Started for Free
3 books & journal articles
  • The site
    • United Kingdom
    • Construction Law. Volume II - Third Edition
    • April 13, 2020
    ...73.1; JCWC Standard Form of Building Contract, 2006 edition, clause 34.1; SIa Building Contract, 1st edition, 2016, clause 36(1). 558 [1963] 1 WLr 982. 559 [1963] 1 WLr 982 at 986–987. 560 [1963] 1 WLr 982 at 989–990. 561 For example, under the ancient Monuments and archaeological areas act......
  • Finders keepers? A historical survey of lost and abandoned property and the law.
    • Canada
    • LawNow Vol. 38 No. 3, January - January 2014
    • January 1, 2014
    ...better right to the property (as per South Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman, [1986] 2 QB 44; City of London Corporation v. Appleyard, [1963] 1 WLR 982, 2 All ER Further Interpretations in Canadian Law ... the common law has leaned heavily on the side of the finders over other potential co......
  • All is not lost: the law of lost and found.
    • Canada
    • LawNow Vol. 38 No. 3, January - January 2014
    • January 1, 2014
    ...found chattels, even if the chattel's existence is not known by the land occupier (Corporation of London et al. v. Appleyard et at., [1963] 2 All E.R. 834). If the item is found on public property (like an airport), the occupier generally has insufficient control to claim Therefore, if we f......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT