Fixtures and Fittings

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: Edward
  • Created on: 29-02-16 11:12
Bernstein Leigh v Skyview (1978)
The airspace up to a reasonable height ‘as is nec for the ordinary use and enjoyment of his land and structures upon it’ is included
1 of 35
Kelsen v Imperial Tobacco (1957)
If interfered with, it may give rise to an action in trespass/nuisance
2 of 35
Roseberry v Rocklee (2011)
Re block of flats, there is no presumption in any lease of, or including, a roof that it extends upwards to the full height of the airspace available to the lessor
3 of 35
Lemon v Webb (1895)
If a 3rd party enters into the prop owner’s airspace, they will be guilty of trespass regardless of whether any damage is caused to the prop
4 of 35
Ellis v Loftus Iron (1874)
Shows strict rule re trespass of lower airspace due to difficulty in keeping horse’s head from crossing line of the fence
5 of 35
Anchor Brewhouse (1987)
Scott J granted injunction to prevent invasion of landowner’s airspace by the booms of the tower cranes of the def’s, but suspended inj for 21 days
6 of 35
Woolerton (1970)
Inj was suspended for 12 months to allow building work to be completed
7 of 35
Jaggard v Sawyer (1995)
Where an inj’n is granted to restrain invasion of airspace, it is generally inapprop to suspend the inj’n
8 of 35
Grigsby v Melville (1974)
A person who purchases land acquires everything that lies below its surface
9 of 35
Mitchell v Moseley (1914)
Minerals and other substances in the land (e.g. stone, sand and gravel) at common law, belong to the land owner
10 of 35
Bocardo SA v Star Energy (2011)
A trespass occurred by the drilling if wells for petroleum and the laying of pipelines 2,900ft below C’s land
11 of 35
Lord Bernstein
Invasion of airspace in the higher stratum does not amount to a trespass
12 of 35
Kelsen v Imperial Tobacco
The owner has rights over his airspace – invasion of the airspace at the lower stratum (portion of airspace extending to about 200m above roof level), prima facie, amounts to trespass
13 of 35
Taylor v Hamer (2003)
The buyers argued successfully that fixtures to be included in a sale were determined even earlier – at the time when the property is offered for sale
14 of 35
Mancetter Developments v Garmanson (1985)
Any damage to the property arising from the removal of these fixtures must be made good
15 of 35
Elwes v Brigg (1886)
Any objects embedded in land are presumed, in the absence of the true owner, to be within the ownership of the landowner and not the finder
16 of 35
Waverley BC v Fletcher (1995)
Council had better title to gold broach than did the finder whose actions in digging out the ground amounted to trespass
17 of 35
Parker v BA Board (1982)
Rule in Elwes does not apply to unattached items found lying on surface of the land
18 of 35
HE Dibble v Moore (1970)
Moveable greenhouses (standing on their own weight on dollies which were NOT fixed to the ground) did not pass to new owners under s 62
19 of 35
Skerrits v Sec of State (2000)
A substantial marquee which was erected each year and remained on site from Feb to Oct was a sufficiently perm structure and categorised as a ‘building’
20 of 35
Elitestone v Morris (1997)
Free-standing wooden chalet built by tenant’s predecessor in title, which rested on concrete pillars was a permanent structure as it could only be used in situ and thus formed part of the land
21 of 35
Chelsea Yacht v Pope (2000)
Floating home was not a building as it did not form part of the land to which it was moored
22 of 35
Wessex Reserve v White (2006)
A portable shed did not have sufficient degree of permanence to be a building and was thus not part and parcel of the land
23 of 35
Holland v Hodgson (1872)
There are 2 general tests for distinguishing between fixtures and chattels: degree of annex’n and purpose of annex’n
24 of 35
Berkeley v Poulett (1976)
In modern times, the emphasis has moved away from such a rigid rule and rests now upon why the item was intro’d on to the land (i.e. purpose test)
25 of 35
Holland v Hodgson (1872)
THE MORE FIRMLY FIXED AN OBJECT IS TO THE PROPERTY, THE MORE LIKELY IT IS TO BE A FIXTURE
26 of 35
Hulme v Brigham (1943)
An object resting on its own weight regardless of size and manoeuvrability will be a chattel
27 of 35
Hamp v Bygrave (1983)
When the purpose test is inconc, whichever presumption is chosen is likely to be decisive of whether an item is a fixture or not
28 of 35
Re Whaley (1908)
An Elizabethan tapestry in an Elizabethan house was a fixture
29 of 35
Elitestone v Morris (1997)
Basic q’n= whether the item is there in order to be a permanent improvement, or is intended instead to be a temporary installation
30 of 35
Re Falbe (1901)
The court was primarily concerned with obj intentions and not the actual subj intentions of the person who brought the item on to the land
31 of 35
Leigh v Taylor (1902)
Tapestries secured to a wall remained chattels as there was nothing to indicate that they were to be a permanent attachment
32 of 35
D’Eyncourt v Gregory (1866)
Freestanding marble ornaments is regarded as fixtures because they formed an integral part of the landscaped garden
33 of 35
Brudenell-Bruce v Moore (2012)
The paintings were NOT attached to the prop for the purpose of its permanent beautification
34 of 35
Viscount Hill v Bullock (1897)
Stuffed birds secured in display cabinets were NOT fixtures because it could not be said that a dead bird could form part of the land and the mode of attachment was for disply purposes rather than to effect a permanent improvement
35 of 35

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

If interfered with, it may give rise to an action in trespass/nuisance

Back

Kelsen v Imperial Tobacco (1957)

Card 3

Front

Re block of flats, there is no presumption in any lease of, or including, a roof that it extends upwards to the full height of the airspace available to the lessor

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

If a 3rd party enters into the prop owner’s airspace, they will be guilty of trespass regardless of whether any damage is caused to the prop

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

Shows strict rule re trespass of lower airspace due to difficulty in keeping horse’s head from crossing line of the fence

Back

Preview of the back of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Land resources »