Fixtures and Fittings

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

Get Revising

Fixtures and Fittings

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Back

Card 3

Front

Back

Card 4

Front

Back

Card 5

Front

Back

Comments

Similar Law resources:

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Back

Card 3

Front

Back

Card 4

Front

Back

Card 5

Front

Back

Comments

Related discussions on The Student Room

Similar Law resources: