Law of Properties and Land
Added on 2022-08-13
42 Pages11535 Words97 Views
|
|
|
Running head: LL5301 Land LAW
LL5301 Land LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note
LL5301 Land LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note
LL5301 Land LAW
1
Fixtures and Chattels
Issue:
What are the rights of Raheem as the owner of the property over the objects that are
already on the ‘concept 2019’ property?
Whether the titanium fence should be considered as chattel or fixtures?
Whether the previous owner can claim ownership over the titanium fence after selling
it to Raheem?
What are the retention rights of Raheem regarding the titanium fence?
Can the LCD screen be considered as an essential part of the land?
What are the rights of Raheem and the previous owner regarding the LCD screen?
Whether the nameplate in the driveway should be considered as a chattel or fixture in
contrast to its annexation to the land?
What are the remedies available to Raheem regarding the wrongful removal of the
objects against the previous owner of ‘concept 2019’?
What are the provision of Law of Property, 1925 regarding Chattels and fixtures?
What remedies are available to Raheem for removal of fixtures owned by him in
‘Concept 2019’?
Rule:
In this case, property law concepts of chattels and fixtures have been discussed.
Further, rule envisaged under the Law of Property Act, 1925 regarding the ownership of
chattel and fixtures by the previous and current owner of the land has been further discussed.
1
Fixtures and Chattels
Issue:
What are the rights of Raheem as the owner of the property over the objects that are
already on the ‘concept 2019’ property?
Whether the titanium fence should be considered as chattel or fixtures?
Whether the previous owner can claim ownership over the titanium fence after selling
it to Raheem?
What are the retention rights of Raheem regarding the titanium fence?
Can the LCD screen be considered as an essential part of the land?
What are the rights of Raheem and the previous owner regarding the LCD screen?
Whether the nameplate in the driveway should be considered as a chattel or fixture in
contrast to its annexation to the land?
What are the remedies available to Raheem regarding the wrongful removal of the
objects against the previous owner of ‘concept 2019’?
What are the provision of Law of Property, 1925 regarding Chattels and fixtures?
What remedies are available to Raheem for removal of fixtures owned by him in
‘Concept 2019’?
Rule:
In this case, property law concepts of chattels and fixtures have been discussed.
Further, rule envisaged under the Law of Property Act, 1925 regarding the ownership of
chattel and fixtures by the previous and current owner of the land has been further discussed.
LL5301 Land LAW
2
Analysis:
In this case, Raheem purchased a property named ‘Concept 2019’. However, before
the delivery of the same, the seller removed some of the fixtures which were there in the
property and particularly upon which Raheem was interested. The facts of the case showing
that firstly, a titanium fence, has been removed from the garden, which was adjoined in the
ground. Thereby caused damaged to the ground. The main question is whether the titanium
can be considered as chattel or fixture. According to Section 62 of the Law of Property Act,
19251, every item that is listed as an integral part of a conveyance of land, can be considered
as a fixture. Therefore, it can be said that, when a property is transferred or sold from one to
another party, then such transfer includes all rights and obligation over the property. During
the sale of land, if anything is expressly mentioned as fixtures with the confined land, then
the ownership of the fixture will be conveyed to the person who has purchased the land. In
the case of Hellawell v Eastwood2, the court ruled out a two-stage test or gravity test that
needs to be considered before declaring an item fixture or chattel because of the fact that it is
attached to the land. The two-fold test consists of degree and purpose on annexation, that is
the range to which an item has been seized to a property and the purpose behind such
annexation. In another case of Elitestone Ltd v Morris3, the court held that to consider an item
as fixture the degree of is attached to the land should be such that it does not fall within the
purview to consider the same as chattel. In another case of Aircool Installations v British
Telecommunications4, the court held that when an owner of land along with fixture sell his
land to another person, he or she does not claim right over the fixture similar to that of the
1 Poulsom, Michael W. "S. 62 LPA 1925: restating the case for reform." International
Journal of Law in the Built Environment (2017).
2 Hellawell v Eastwood(1851)155 E.R. 554
3 Elitestone Ltd v Morris [1997] 1 W.L.R. 687
4 Aircool Installations v British Telecommunications [1995] C.L.Y. 821
2
Analysis:
In this case, Raheem purchased a property named ‘Concept 2019’. However, before
the delivery of the same, the seller removed some of the fixtures which were there in the
property and particularly upon which Raheem was interested. The facts of the case showing
that firstly, a titanium fence, has been removed from the garden, which was adjoined in the
ground. Thereby caused damaged to the ground. The main question is whether the titanium
can be considered as chattel or fixture. According to Section 62 of the Law of Property Act,
19251, every item that is listed as an integral part of a conveyance of land, can be considered
as a fixture. Therefore, it can be said that, when a property is transferred or sold from one to
another party, then such transfer includes all rights and obligation over the property. During
the sale of land, if anything is expressly mentioned as fixtures with the confined land, then
the ownership of the fixture will be conveyed to the person who has purchased the land. In
the case of Hellawell v Eastwood2, the court ruled out a two-stage test or gravity test that
needs to be considered before declaring an item fixture or chattel because of the fact that it is
attached to the land. The two-fold test consists of degree and purpose on annexation, that is
the range to which an item has been seized to a property and the purpose behind such
annexation. In another case of Elitestone Ltd v Morris3, the court held that to consider an item
as fixture the degree of is attached to the land should be such that it does not fall within the
purview to consider the same as chattel. In another case of Aircool Installations v British
Telecommunications4, the court held that when an owner of land along with fixture sell his
land to another person, he or she does not claim right over the fixture similar to that of the
1 Poulsom, Michael W. "S. 62 LPA 1925: restating the case for reform." International
Journal of Law in the Built Environment (2017).
2 Hellawell v Eastwood(1851)155 E.R. 554
3 Elitestone Ltd v Morris [1997] 1 W.L.R. 687
4 Aircool Installations v British Telecommunications [1995] C.L.Y. 821
LL5301 Land LAW
3
land. In the case of Wiltshear v Cottrell5, the court held that, where an item is attached to
land with the support of bolts and screws, it should be considered as part of the land. In the
case of Walmsley v Milne6, the court held that an object could be considered as a part of the
land if it is attached with the intention to proliferate the worth of the land to which it is being
attached. The gravity test is the best way to determine the character of an object attached to a
land. In the case of Potton Developments Ltd v Thompson7, the court held that an item which
is bolted down to the floor not necessarily to be a fixture every time. It will depend upon the
intention to use the same as a fixture, which can be concluded from the demeanor of the
parties. On the contrary, a lack of intention to treat an item to be a part of the land would
mean that the element was not a fixture. In this case, the titanium fence was a part of the land
and removing the same had caused damage to the land. Therefore, it should be treated as a
fixture, and subsequently, Raheem can claim ownership over the same. Raheem further
claimed that LCD Screen in the living room has also been removed which was affixed to the
wall with electromagnets. As per the definition of chattel, any property which is of
independent character and which can rest on land depending upon its own weight is a chattel.
This resting on its own weight is considered as the gravity test to determine an item as
chattel. Chattels are generally moveable substances of a property that are generally not
attached to the land. It is more temporary in character and removing the same does not cause
any harm or damage to the land. In the case of Hulme v Bingham8, the court held that heavy
machinery that is detached from the land was not a chattel. In Botham v TSB Bank plc9, the
court held that in case of a kitchen appliance that was placed on a kitchen floor without any
means of fastening through a screw or other support and where the same is holding its place
merely by its own weight, must be considered as chattels. The presence of the fact that it is
5 Wiltshear v Cottrell (1853) 1 E & B 674
6 Walmsley v Milne,(1859),7 C.B.N.S.133-4(97 E.C.L.R.)
7 Potton Developments Ltd v Thompson [1998] NPC 49, ChD
8 Hulme v Brigham [1943] K.B. 152
9 Botham v TSB Bank (1996), 7 P & C R D 1
3
land. In the case of Wiltshear v Cottrell5, the court held that, where an item is attached to
land with the support of bolts and screws, it should be considered as part of the land. In the
case of Walmsley v Milne6, the court held that an object could be considered as a part of the
land if it is attached with the intention to proliferate the worth of the land to which it is being
attached. The gravity test is the best way to determine the character of an object attached to a
land. In the case of Potton Developments Ltd v Thompson7, the court held that an item which
is bolted down to the floor not necessarily to be a fixture every time. It will depend upon the
intention to use the same as a fixture, which can be concluded from the demeanor of the
parties. On the contrary, a lack of intention to treat an item to be a part of the land would
mean that the element was not a fixture. In this case, the titanium fence was a part of the land
and removing the same had caused damage to the land. Therefore, it should be treated as a
fixture, and subsequently, Raheem can claim ownership over the same. Raheem further
claimed that LCD Screen in the living room has also been removed which was affixed to the
wall with electromagnets. As per the definition of chattel, any property which is of
independent character and which can rest on land depending upon its own weight is a chattel.
This resting on its own weight is considered as the gravity test to determine an item as
chattel. Chattels are generally moveable substances of a property that are generally not
attached to the land. It is more temporary in character and removing the same does not cause
any harm or damage to the land. In the case of Hulme v Bingham8, the court held that heavy
machinery that is detached from the land was not a chattel. In Botham v TSB Bank plc9, the
court held that in case of a kitchen appliance that was placed on a kitchen floor without any
means of fastening through a screw or other support and where the same is holding its place
merely by its own weight, must be considered as chattels. The presence of the fact that it is
5 Wiltshear v Cottrell (1853) 1 E & B 674
6 Walmsley v Milne,(1859),7 C.B.N.S.133-4(97 E.C.L.R.)
7 Potton Developments Ltd v Thompson [1998] NPC 49, ChD
8 Hulme v Brigham [1943] K.B. 152
9 Botham v TSB Bank (1996), 7 P & C R D 1
LL5301 Land LAW
4
connected through electricity and integrated into the kitchen does not exclude the same to be
considered as chattel. In the case of Holland v Hodgson10, the court held that spinning looms
that were attached to the floor of a mill is to be considered as a fixture.
An object that possesses the characteristics of a chattel can be converted into a fixture.
It depends on the intention to consider it as a part of the land. However, intention can be
assed by the inference, and communication held between the parties. If the intention between
the parties to treat an object as a fixture, then it should be treated as a fixture in spite of the
fact that it can be easily detached from the lad without initiating any damage on the same.
Therefore, in this case, the LCD screen would generally be considered a chattel. However, if
there exist any contrary intention that is sufficient to treat the same as a fixture, then it will be
treated as a fixture. Raheem further claimed that in the driveway magnificently bright letters
spelling out ‘Rodriguez’ have been removed which caused damage to the concrete as it was
fixed in there with screw fittings. In the case of Aircool Installations v British
Telecommunications11, the fact is issue was an air conditioner equipment was fixed into the
wall of a building. The court held that it should be considered as fixtures as it was bolted on
and cut in the walls for fitting. However, the general definition of fixtures includes anything
that is physically bestowed to the land and which is supposed to stay with the land after the
completion of a sale. Similarly, everything that is bolted down cannot be considered as
fixtures in the absence of the intention to treat it is as a fixture. The intention behind fixation
of an object must be known to both the parties. In the case of Dixon v Fisher12, where a piece
of machinery is firmly attached to the land and the parties intended to use the machinery for a
particular purpose and thereafter, intended to remove it cannot disqualify it from treating as a
fixture. Therefore, it can be said that the assessment of the degree of annexation would be the
10 Holland v Hodgson(1871-72) L.R. 7 C.P. 328
11 Aircool Installations v British Telecommunications [1995] C.L.Y. 821
12 Dixon v Fisher (1843) 5 D 775
4
connected through electricity and integrated into the kitchen does not exclude the same to be
considered as chattel. In the case of Holland v Hodgson10, the court held that spinning looms
that were attached to the floor of a mill is to be considered as a fixture.
An object that possesses the characteristics of a chattel can be converted into a fixture.
It depends on the intention to consider it as a part of the land. However, intention can be
assed by the inference, and communication held between the parties. If the intention between
the parties to treat an object as a fixture, then it should be treated as a fixture in spite of the
fact that it can be easily detached from the lad without initiating any damage on the same.
Therefore, in this case, the LCD screen would generally be considered a chattel. However, if
there exist any contrary intention that is sufficient to treat the same as a fixture, then it will be
treated as a fixture. Raheem further claimed that in the driveway magnificently bright letters
spelling out ‘Rodriguez’ have been removed which caused damage to the concrete as it was
fixed in there with screw fittings. In the case of Aircool Installations v British
Telecommunications11, the fact is issue was an air conditioner equipment was fixed into the
wall of a building. The court held that it should be considered as fixtures as it was bolted on
and cut in the walls for fitting. However, the general definition of fixtures includes anything
that is physically bestowed to the land and which is supposed to stay with the land after the
completion of a sale. Similarly, everything that is bolted down cannot be considered as
fixtures in the absence of the intention to treat it is as a fixture. The intention behind fixation
of an object must be known to both the parties. In the case of Dixon v Fisher12, where a piece
of machinery is firmly attached to the land and the parties intended to use the machinery for a
particular purpose and thereafter, intended to remove it cannot disqualify it from treating as a
fixture. Therefore, it can be said that the assessment of the degree of annexation would be the
10 Holland v Hodgson(1871-72) L.R. 7 C.P. 328
11 Aircool Installations v British Telecommunications [1995] C.L.Y. 821
12 Dixon v Fisher (1843) 5 D 775
LL5301 Land LAW
5
factor to treat an object as chattel or fixtures. In the case of Rex v. Otley13, the court held that
the wooden mill in issue does not form the part of the land. Therefore, it should be considered
as chattel. In another case of Snedeker v. Warring14, the court held that a thing might firmly
be attached to the land by cement or clamps, but its character depends upon the object behind
its construction. In this case, it was unnecessary to consider the nameplate as fixtures unless
Raheem has expressed his intention to own the same with the property
Therefore, it can be said that intention will also play a vital role in determining the
character of the objects in issue in this case. As the intention of Raheem behind the decision
of purchasing the property was clear from the beginning that he wanted to acquire it for the
objects associated with it. Further, Raheem can claim damages for the unauthorised removal
of fixtures from ‘concept 2019’ after the transfer of the property has been completed in his
favour.
Conclusion:
Therefore, it can be concluded from the above-mentioned discussion that, Raheem has
a right over the objects that are considered as fixtures that is the titanium fence and the
nameplate contained the name of ‘Rodriguez’ in ‘concept 2019’. Henceforth, he can further
claim damages from the previous owner for removing the items from the property without
informing him.
13 Rex v. Otley (1830) 1 B. & Ad. 161
14 Snedeker v. Warring (1854), 12 N.Y. 170
5
factor to treat an object as chattel or fixtures. In the case of Rex v. Otley13, the court held that
the wooden mill in issue does not form the part of the land. Therefore, it should be considered
as chattel. In another case of Snedeker v. Warring14, the court held that a thing might firmly
be attached to the land by cement or clamps, but its character depends upon the object behind
its construction. In this case, it was unnecessary to consider the nameplate as fixtures unless
Raheem has expressed his intention to own the same with the property
Therefore, it can be said that intention will also play a vital role in determining the
character of the objects in issue in this case. As the intention of Raheem behind the decision
of purchasing the property was clear from the beginning that he wanted to acquire it for the
objects associated with it. Further, Raheem can claim damages for the unauthorised removal
of fixtures from ‘concept 2019’ after the transfer of the property has been completed in his
favour.
Conclusion:
Therefore, it can be concluded from the above-mentioned discussion that, Raheem has
a right over the objects that are considered as fixtures that is the titanium fence and the
nameplate contained the name of ‘Rodriguez’ in ‘concept 2019’. Henceforth, he can further
claim damages from the previous owner for removing the items from the property without
informing him.
13 Rex v. Otley (1830) 1 B. & Ad. 161
14 Snedeker v. Warring (1854), 12 N.Y. 170
LL5301 Land LAW
6
Bibliography:
Journals:
Poulsom, Michael W. "S. 62 LPA 1925: restating the case for reform." International Journal
of Law in the Built Environment (2017).
Case Law:
Aircool Installations v British Telecommunications [1995] C.L.Y. 821
Botham v TSB Bank (1996), 7 P & C R D 1
Dixon v Fisher (1843) 5 D 775
Elitestone Ltd v Morris [1997] 1 W.L.R. 687
Hellawell v Eastwood(1851)155 E.R. 554
Holland v Hodgson(1871-72) L.R. 7 C.P. 328
Hulme v Brigham [1943] K.B. 152
Potton Developments Ltd v Thompson [1998] NPC 49, ChD
Rex v. Otley (1830) 1 B. & Ad. 161
Snedeker v. Warring (1854), 12 N.Y. 170
Walmsley v Milne,(1859),7 C.B.N.S.133-4(97 E.C.L.R.)
Wiltshear v Cottrell (1853) 1 E & B 674
6
Bibliography:
Journals:
Poulsom, Michael W. "S. 62 LPA 1925: restating the case for reform." International Journal
of Law in the Built Environment (2017).
Case Law:
Aircool Installations v British Telecommunications [1995] C.L.Y. 821
Botham v TSB Bank (1996), 7 P & C R D 1
Dixon v Fisher (1843) 5 D 775
Elitestone Ltd v Morris [1997] 1 W.L.R. 687
Hellawell v Eastwood(1851)155 E.R. 554
Holland v Hodgson(1871-72) L.R. 7 C.P. 328
Hulme v Brigham [1943] K.B. 152
Potton Developments Ltd v Thompson [1998] NPC 49, ChD
Rex v. Otley (1830) 1 B. & Ad. 161
Snedeker v. Warring (1854), 12 N.Y. 170
Walmsley v Milne,(1859),7 C.B.N.S.133-4(97 E.C.L.R.)
Wiltshear v Cottrell (1853) 1 E & B 674
LL5301 Land LAW
7
Models of Ownership
Issue:
Whether the ownership of the house falls under a joint tenancy or tenants in common?
Whether the rule of survivorship is applicable in this case?
Whether Hamid can sell his portion of the house to others?
Whether Zhi can acquire his portion of share in the flat?
Whether Martha can leave her share of the house to her niece?
What will be the application of the rule of severance in this case?
Rule:
In this case, rule relating to joint tenancy and tenancy in common under the Law of
Proper Act, 1925 have been discussed in this case.
Analysis:
In this case, Raheem, Zhi, Hamish and Martha bought a house together. But due to mental
differences, they decided to split their ways and thereby, wanted to acquire a share in the
house. Hamish first decided to sell his part of the share of the house o another person. The
first thing that needs to be concluded in this case is whether the co-ownership created under
joint tenancy or tenancy in common. In accordance with the guidelines of section 34 of the
Law of Property Act, 192515, maximum four-person can jointly own a legal estate. In case the
number exceeds four, the rest are to be treated as beneficial owners, and there are no
restrictions as to the number of joint tenants in equity. In the case of Dennis v MacDonald16,
the court held that a joint owner could not be excluded from the possession of the co-owned
15 Roche, Juanita. "Historiography and the Law of Property Act 1925: the return of Frankenstein." The
Cambridge Law Journal 77.3 (2018): 600-629.
16 Dennis v MacDonald [1981] 1 W.L.R. 810
7
Models of Ownership
Issue:
Whether the ownership of the house falls under a joint tenancy or tenants in common?
Whether the rule of survivorship is applicable in this case?
Whether Hamid can sell his portion of the house to others?
Whether Zhi can acquire his portion of share in the flat?
Whether Martha can leave her share of the house to her niece?
What will be the application of the rule of severance in this case?
Rule:
In this case, rule relating to joint tenancy and tenancy in common under the Law of
Proper Act, 1925 have been discussed in this case.
Analysis:
In this case, Raheem, Zhi, Hamish and Martha bought a house together. But due to mental
differences, they decided to split their ways and thereby, wanted to acquire a share in the
house. Hamish first decided to sell his part of the share of the house o another person. The
first thing that needs to be concluded in this case is whether the co-ownership created under
joint tenancy or tenancy in common. In accordance with the guidelines of section 34 of the
Law of Property Act, 192515, maximum four-person can jointly own a legal estate. In case the
number exceeds four, the rest are to be treated as beneficial owners, and there are no
restrictions as to the number of joint tenants in equity. In the case of Dennis v MacDonald16,
the court held that a joint owner could not be excluded from the possession of the co-owned
15 Roche, Juanita. "Historiography and the Law of Property Act 1925: the return of Frankenstein." The
Cambridge Law Journal 77.3 (2018): 600-629.
16 Dennis v MacDonald [1981] 1 W.L.R. 810
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.
Related Documents
Property Law - Case Study | Assignmentlg...
|25
|9270
|12
GFTF Solicitors: Understanding Fixtures and Fittings in Property Lawlg...
|10
|2689
|187
Property Law Assignment (Doc)lg...
|10
|2848
|32
Land Law Assignment Solution - Deskliblg...
|4
|841
|648
Business Law - Assignment PDFlg...
|8
|1703
|70
Business Law: Personal vs Real Property, Easements, Bankruptcy Legislation, and Morelg...
|8
|1762
|243