This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: to the goods and not the employer. This distinction can be
very fine in some circumstances.
Byrne v Hoare  Qd R 135
The plaintiff was a policeman with the Queensland
police force. He was performing special duty at a
drive-in theatre, supervising traffic leaving the drivein. While walking to his post, he found a small ingot of
gold, which was claimed by the Crown. commenced his employment. He was in the same
position as any finder, and the performance of his
duties wasn’t the real or effective cause of him finding
the ingot. He was therefore entitled to possession
against everyone in the world except the true owner. ISSUE: Was the finding of the item in the course of
(or directly due to) the employment, or was it merely
incidental to (or indirectly connected with) the
employment? COMMENT: When something is found in the course of a DECISION: The Queensland Supreme Court held that
at the time the policeman found the ingot he had not person’s employment, the employee finds that item for
their employer. However, where the employment is only
incidental or inessential to the finding, t...
View Full Document
This document was uploaded on 04/23/2012.
- Three '12