## Facts

- Waverley Borough Council owned Farnham Park as freeholder and operated it as public recreational open space, exercising control through staff, a ranger, and park bye-laws.
- Ian Fletcher entered the park as a lawful visitor and used a metal detector to search for valuables.
- Fletcher located and excavated a medieval gold brooch approximately nine inches below the soil surface after digging into hard ground.
- Fletcher reported the find; a coroner’s inquest determined the brooch was not treasure trove, and it was returned to Fletcher.
- The Council sued for a declaration of ownership and delivery up (or damages), asserting title as landowner/occupier to items found in the soil.
- The trial court ruled for Fletcher on a finder’s title theory; the Council appealed.

## Issues

1. As between a landowner or lawful possessor and a finder, who has the better title to an article found in or attached to the land?
2. Does the analysis change when the land is public open space to which the public is admitted for recreation?
3. Did the Council’s regulatory control (including bye-laws) and management of the park establish sufficient possession/occupation to support its claim?

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal allowed the Council’s appeal.
- The brooch belonged to the Council as owner and occupier of the land in which it was found.
- Fletcher, though a lawful visitor and finder, did not have the better title because the object was embedded in the soil rather than merely lying on the surface.
- The public character of the park did not defeat or reduce the Council’s possessory rights in buried objects.

## Legal Principles

- A landowner or lawful possessor has the better right to chattels that are in the land or attached to it; a finder’s claim is subordinate to that possessory title.
- The “finder’s title” principle is more apt for objects found on the surface where the occupier has not manifested control; it does not govern objects embedded below the surface.
- Land held and managed as public open space may still be possessed/occupied by the local authority for purposes of determining title to items in the soil; public access is a regulated use, not a transfer of possession.

## Conclusion

The court held that an item excavated from beneath the surface of a public park belongs to the landowner-occupier, and that public recreational access does not displace the landholder’s possessory title to objects embedded in the land.


Waverley Borough Council v. Fletcher, [1996] Q.B. 334 (Eng. C.A. 1995)