This distinction can be very fine in some

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: to the goods and not the employer. This distinction can be very fine in some circumstances. Byrne v Hoare [1965] 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.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online