Topic 4 - Relativity of Title

Topic 4 - Relativity of Title What is Relativity of Title? The Doctrine of Relativity of title resolves disputes between two people claiming possession of the same thing. Based on the principle of nemo dat quod non habet (that no one can give what he or she does not have). o The principle is illustrated in the law of finders’ rights and in adverse possession. Title vs Ownership Title often used as a synonym for ownership, but a person can have title to something without being its owner Title is relative – when a court deals with competing claims to possession, it decides which of the claimants has the better claim, not who in the world has the best claim. McFarlane: “The doctrine of relative title is a key part of property law: although X is not the ‘true owner’ of the object, X’s right to possession will be protected against anyone who cannot show that he or she has a better property right to the object than X. The basic test as to which of two such property rights is ‘better’ is that the earlier property right will win. So, [Y] would need to show that he or she acquired a property right to the object before X found it and took possession of it.’ A person acquiring possession has a possessory title (a legal right) but may not be the owner. Best to think of title as entitlement Often seen in cases of adverse possession. In short, when someone obtains possession of goods or land, they thereby obtain a right to possession, which is good against everyone else in society, except someone with a better right to possession. Limitation Act 1980 sets time limits in which claims may be commenced, including claims based on the torts of trespass or conversion. If the claim is not brought in time, the claimant’s right to possession may be lost. o Sections 2-4 apply to chattels (the limitation act 1980 no longer applies to registered land. What about finders’ keepers? A finder has a right to the lost article as against the whole world except the true owner. Armory v Delamirie (1722) o Chimney sweeper’s boy found a jewel and carried it to the defendant’s shop, who was a goldsmith, to ask what it was and its worth. He delivered it into the hands of the apprentice, who under pretence of weighing it, took out the stones, and calling to the master to let him know it came to three halfpence, the master offered the boy the money, who refused to take it, and insisted to have the thing again; whereupon the apprentice delivered him back the socket without the stones. The boy later brought a claim. o The Plaintiff has a right of ownership that is cognizable, yet falls short of absolute. The Plaintiff who found the jewel has a right of ownership which is sufficient to enable the finder to keep the jewel against any claim save that of the rightful owner. The trover action is proper. The action is proper against the master, insofar as the master gave the directions to the apprentice. This is a form of respondeat superior. Costello v CC Derbyshire Constasbulary [2001] o The claimant was known to police as someone who dealt in stolen cars. They impounded one of his cars on suspicion of theft, but no charges were brought. Claimant sued for return of car. There was no challenge to the fact that the claimant knew the car was stolen. o Lightman LJ held that there were three general propositions of law clearly established by Webb:  (i) possession of a chattel of itself gives to the possessor a possessory title and the possessor is entitled to rely on such title without reference to the circumstances in which such possession was obtained. His claim can only be defeated by proof of a title superior to his possessory title  (ii) The question of which party has the better claim to the title  (iii) in all the circumstances places in suspension or temporarily divests all existing rights to possession but does not otherwise affect those rights or vestin the police any permanent entitlement to retain the property in the police. Nemo Dat The law provides a number of rules for resolving disputes between two or more people claiming inconsistent property rights to the same thing One tends to the simple rule of “I had it first”. Generally speaking, an earlier property right is better than a late one, but there are many exceptions to that rule. Nemo dat is often the starting point when dealing with competing claims to goods. Often these disputes arise because two honest people who have suffered at the hands of a rogue, such as a thief who sells an item and sells it to an honest buyer. Nemo dat provides a simple way of resolving these disputes, but there are important exceptions to that principle. The exceptions to nemo dat, both at common law and by statute, enable buyers in good faith to obtain good title to chattel, even though the seller does not have good title. Perhaps the most important exception is money used as currency Where land is concerned, the Land Register takes the place of the nemo dat principle on which it is based