For these reasons, Lord Steyn rejected the appellant's counsel's argument that the law as expounded in R v Gomez and R v Lawrence must be qualified to say that there can be no appropriation unless the other party (the owner) retains some proprietary interest, or the right to resume or recover some proprietary interest, in the property.
Lord Steyn's argument challenges the notion that an individual can claim ownership of something without any connection to the original owner or their ability to reclaim possession.