Land law.pdf - Define incorporeal hereditaments Intangible rights that benefit the land in some way eg right of way Holland v hodgson(1872 Whether an

Land law.pdf - Define incorporeal hereditaments Intangible...

This preview shows page 1 - 4 out of 35 pages.

Define incorporeal hereditaments Intangible rights that benefit the land in some way eg right of way Holland v hodgson (1872) Whether an item is a fixture or chattel will deoemd on the degree ofannexation Melluish v BMI (no 3) ltd (1996) The label the parties give the object (fixture or chattel) is not conclusive of its status Elitestone ltd v morris Wooden bungalows not themselves attached to land but rested on concrete pillars attached to the land were fixtures. Degree of annexation test does not apply where the object doesn't, by reason of its own weight, require any annexation and where it's used in situ and couldn't be removed without physical destruction Hamp v bygrave The purpose of annexation test used in conjunction with the degree of annexation test is now the more dominant test
Image of page 1
Leigh v Taylor Tapestries attached to wall of building said to be chattel. Concerning the purpose of annexation test, if the annexation is so that it may be enjoyed as a chattel it will remain a chattel D'Eyncourt v Gregory Despite being free-standing, marble statues, garden seats and ornaments where held to be fixtures. Where the purpose of annexation is to make an improvement to the property itself then it'll become a fixture Dean v Andrews The purpose of annexation must be judged objectively (although subjective intentions of the person who annexed the object may be persuasive) TSB Bank v Botham Gave a list of factors the courts will take into account when deciding whether an object is a fixture or chattel incl purpose, degree, whether object is part of overall design of the building, moveability of object, lifespan of object, damage caused to land or building when moved, type of person who installed/attached the object to the land. Such factors should be considered together and an overall view taken as to where the balance lies Bernstein of Leigh (Baron) v Skyviews & General ltd Flying a plane over land in order to take aerial pics did not amount to trespass. An owner of an estate in land has rights that extend only as far as the lower airspace necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of that land
Image of page 2
Parker v British Airways Board The plaintiff found gold bracelet at airport, handed it in to employee of defendant and asked for it to be returned to him if no one claimed it. No one did so but defendant sold it and retained proceeds. Said plaintiff was entitled to damages. Held the rights of the finder of an object on surface of ground can only be displaced by the owner of the land if they show an intention to control both the land and items found on it Waverley BC v Fletcher Defendant was lawfully in public car park and unlawfully using metal detector to detect gold brooch buried in the ground, held councils rights to brooch superior to finders. Where an object is found in or attached to the land, the owner of the land has better title to that object than the finder Coatsworth v Johnson Claimant sought specific performance of an agreement for a lease which was declined since
Image of page 3
Image of page 4

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture