Part A
The first issue is whether Cartlon (C) found treasure. To establish if the items C found are treasure or
not the criteria set out by the Treasure Act (TA) must be looked at . Section 1(1)(a) of the Treasure
Act says an object is treasure when over 300 years old and has at least 10% by weight that is
precious metal (gold or silver) or (ii) when there is at least one of two (iii) or one of at least ten coins
that are 300 years old with 10% precious metal. There are reasonable grounds to believe that the
findings by C are treasure because there is more than one coin, but the coins must meet the above
conditions to be considered treasure.
The second issue is whether Adi (A) found treasure while trespassing Esme’s land. Adi found a
Roman helmet and other artefacts. According to the Treasure Designation Order 2002 , any metal
objects from or before the Iron Age is treasure. The Roman helmet is likely to contain metal
therefore it would be considered treasure. Additionally, A searched for treasure where C found it, it
could all be treasure according to section 1(1)(d) any object is part of the same find as an object in
paragraphs a, b or c found at the same time or earlier. In this case, C found items earlier that could
be treasure under section 1(1)(a).
C and A will not be entitled to keep their findings if it is treasure, they will need to report it to the
local corner within 14 days as there are reasonable grounds to believe the found items are treasure .
If there is a failure to report the find, C and A could be liable for a criminal offence (s.8(3)). If the
items C and A found are proven to meet the conditions of treasure the title will vest in the Crown
(s.4(1)). If the treasure is transferred to a local museum, C might be entitled to a reward under s.10,
but A could be entitled to a reduced reward or no reward at all as he trespassed. The reward is
usually split with the owner of the land in accordance with the code of practice on treasure . The
Crown could disclaim the treasure under section 6 of the TA and only then C could keep the pouch of
coins.
However, it could be that the treasure may not be old enough, and in that case finder’s title must be
applied to establish if A and C are entitled to keep their findings. In Moffat v Kanzana it was
established that items found in or on land the original owner will have the best title . In this case, it is
unclear who the original owner is. The case of Parker v British Airways confirms that a finder may
obtain a title that is better than everyone else, but it will not be a better title than the occupier of
the land . The facts imply that the findings were found in the ground and not on the surface. When
things are found in the ground it is assumed that the owner intends to exercise their control over the
land so they will have the best title to items found in their land, this rule was established in Waverley
BC v Fletcher . In Elwes v Brigg, Chitty J argued that the landowner was not only in possession of the
ground but also the surface of it . To conclude if the items are not treasure the landowner would
have the best title to items found.
Part B
The issue in this scenario is who has the best claim to the box containing the necklace. It must first
be established whether the necklace was found on or in the land. It is likely that items will be
considered as found on the ground this is because it wasn’t buried 9 inches deep in the ground like
the brooch in Waverly BC v Fletcher. Therefore, rules must be applied in relation to things found on
the ground. There are three people who may have a claim for this necklace. Rosie who owns the
freehold estate, Priya who lives in it or Steph who found it. The original owner will always have the
The first issue is whether Cartlon (C) found treasure. To establish if the items C found are treasure or
not the criteria set out by the Treasure Act (TA) must be looked at . Section 1(1)(a) of the Treasure
Act says an object is treasure when over 300 years old and has at least 10% by weight that is
precious metal (gold or silver) or (ii) when there is at least one of two (iii) or one of at least ten coins
that are 300 years old with 10% precious metal. There are reasonable grounds to believe that the
findings by C are treasure because there is more than one coin, but the coins must meet the above
conditions to be considered treasure.
The second issue is whether Adi (A) found treasure while trespassing Esme’s land. Adi found a
Roman helmet and other artefacts. According to the Treasure Designation Order 2002 , any metal
objects from or before the Iron Age is treasure. The Roman helmet is likely to contain metal
therefore it would be considered treasure. Additionally, A searched for treasure where C found it, it
could all be treasure according to section 1(1)(d) any object is part of the same find as an object in
paragraphs a, b or c found at the same time or earlier. In this case, C found items earlier that could
be treasure under section 1(1)(a).
C and A will not be entitled to keep their findings if it is treasure, they will need to report it to the
local corner within 14 days as there are reasonable grounds to believe the found items are treasure .
If there is a failure to report the find, C and A could be liable for a criminal offence (s.8(3)). If the
items C and A found are proven to meet the conditions of treasure the title will vest in the Crown
(s.4(1)). If the treasure is transferred to a local museum, C might be entitled to a reward under s.10,
but A could be entitled to a reduced reward or no reward at all as he trespassed. The reward is
usually split with the owner of the land in accordance with the code of practice on treasure . The
Crown could disclaim the treasure under section 6 of the TA and only then C could keep the pouch of
coins.
However, it could be that the treasure may not be old enough, and in that case finder’s title must be
applied to establish if A and C are entitled to keep their findings. In Moffat v Kanzana it was
established that items found in or on land the original owner will have the best title . In this case, it is
unclear who the original owner is. The case of Parker v British Airways confirms that a finder may
obtain a title that is better than everyone else, but it will not be a better title than the occupier of
the land . The facts imply that the findings were found in the ground and not on the surface. When
things are found in the ground it is assumed that the owner intends to exercise their control over the
land so they will have the best title to items found in their land, this rule was established in Waverley
BC v Fletcher . In Elwes v Brigg, Chitty J argued that the landowner was not only in possession of the
ground but also the surface of it . To conclude if the items are not treasure the landowner would
have the best title to items found.
Part B
The issue in this scenario is who has the best claim to the box containing the necklace. It must first
be established whether the necklace was found on or in the land. It is likely that items will be
considered as found on the ground this is because it wasn’t buried 9 inches deep in the ground like
the brooch in Waverly BC v Fletcher. Therefore, rules must be applied in relation to things found on
the ground. There are three people who may have a claim for this necklace. Rosie who owns the
freehold estate, Priya who lives in it or Steph who found it. The original owner will always have the
