1 - Introduction

Question 1

Grigsby v Melville

Answer 1

Facts: Plaintiff and defendant were freehold owners of adjoining properties. There was a cellar under the plaintiff’s property that was only accessible from a staircase inside the defendant’s property. Defendant claimed plaintiff did not own the cellar. Court of Appeal held that the cellar was owned by the Plaintiff.

Ratio: A conveyance of land ordinarily includes everything beneath the surface.

Question 2

Board SA v Star Energy UK Onshore Ltd

Answer 2

Facts: Star Energy had a licence to bore for oil from an oil reservoir lying under Surrey. To reach the oil, they bored underneath land belonging to Bocardo, who sued for trespass. Supreme Court found they had trespassed.

Ratio: A conveyance of land ordinarily includes everything beneath the surface.

Question 3

Infrastructure Act 2015, s.43

Answer 3

No trespass at depths below 300 metres

Question 4

Bernstein of Leigh (Baron) v Skyviews and General Ltd

Answer 4

Facts: Defendant flew over plaintiff’s home for purpose of taking an aerial photograph and the plaintiff sued for trespass. D was flying hundred of feet above the ground and did not interfere with any use to which the plaintiff might put the land.

Ratio: Owner has no greater rights than any other member of the public over airspace higher than that which is necessary for the ordinary enjoyment and use of the land and the structures upon it.

Question 5

Kelsen v Imperial Tobacco Co Ltd

Answer 5

Facts: An injunction was granted for the removal of an advertising sign erected by the defendant projected into the airspace above the plaintiff’s shop by a few inches.

Ratio: If a structure overhangs your property, in the lower airspace, it is a trespass irrespective of whether damage is caused.

Question 6

Woollerton and Wilson Ltd v Richard Costain Ltd

Answer 6

Facts: Injunction granted, but postponed for a year, to restrain the defendant’s crane from overhanging the plaintiff’s premises 50 feet above roof level.

Ratio: If a structure overhangs your property, in the lower airspace, it is a trespass irrespective of whether damage is caused.

Question 7

London and Manchester Assurance Co Ltd v O and H Construction Ltd

Answer 7

Facts: Injunction granted to restrain an over swinging crane and other encroachments on the plaintiff’s property.

Ratio: If a structure overhangs your property, in the lower airspace, it is a trespass irrespective of whether damage is caused.

Question 8

Lemmon v Webb

Answer 8

Ratio: A neighbouring owner is entitled, without prior notice, to lop off overhanging branches that intrude into their airspace. However, they must offer the severed branches back to the neighbour.

Question 9

Ellis v Loftus Iron Co

Answer 9

Ratio: A horse putting its head across a dividing fence constitutes a trespass over a neighbour’s property.

Question 10

Civil Aviation Act 1982, s76(1)

Answer 10

Grants immunity from trespass or nuisance for any flight of an aircraft at ‘a height above the ground, which, having regard to wind, weather, and all the circumstances of the case is reasonable’.

Question 11

Bridges v Hawkesworth

Answer 11

Facts: Money found by a customer on the shop floor belonged to the customer not the shopkeeper. This is because the shop floor was a public place and the shopkeeper did not manifest an intention to exercise control over lost items in that area.

Ratio: Objects found unattached on the ground become the property of the finder unless the landowner ‘before the chattel is found … has manifested an intention to exercise control over the land and the things which may be upon it or in it’.

Question 12

Hannah v Peel

Answer 12

Plaintiff found a brooch loose in a crevice of an unoccupied house belonging to the defendant. Court found that the finder was entitled to the brooch.

Ratio: Objects found unattached on the ground become the property of the finder unless the landowner ‘before the chattel is found … has manifested an intention to exercise control over the land and the things which may be upon it or in it’.

Question 13

Saunders v Pilcher

Answer 13

Facts: ‘A clear contrast has always been drawn between those crops which, broadly speaking, are produced in the year by the labour of the year, and crops such as fruit growing on trees where the productive act is the planting of the trees’.

Ratio: Annual crops requiring the expenditure of human effort and labour on a regular basis are not treated as land.

Question 14

Holland v Hodgson

Answer 14

Facts: Spinning looms on the floor of a mill are fixtures.

Ratio: Degree of Annexation should be considered when determining whether something is a chattel or a fixture.

Question 15

Smith v City Petroleum Co Ltd

Answer 15

Facts: Petrol pumps on the station forecourt are fixtures.

Ratio: Degree of Annexation should be considered when determining whether something is a chattel or a fixture.

Question 16

Melluish (H.M. Inspector of Taxes) v BMI (No. 3) Ltd

Answer 16

Facts: Central heating, elevators, video/alarm system and swimming pool filtration plant are fixtures.

Ratio: Degree of Annexation should be considered when determining whether something is a chattel or a fixture.

Question 17

Aircool Installations v British Telecommunications

Answer 17

Facts: Air conditioning equipment fixed into the walls of a building are fixtures.

Ratio: Degree of Annexation should be considered when determining whether something is a chattel or a fixture.

Question 18

Hulme v Brigham

Answer 18

Facts: Printing machinery resting on its own weight is a chattel.

Ratio: Degree of Annexation should be considered when determining whether something is a chattel or a fixture.

Question 19

Culling v Tufnal

Answer 19

Facts: A Dutch barn resting under its own weight is a chattel.

Ratio: Degree of Annexation should be considered when determining whether something is a chattel or a fixture.

Question 20

H E Dibble Ltd V Moore

Answer 20

Facts: Movable greenhouse is a chattel.

Ratio: Degree of Annexation should be considered when determining whether something is a chattel or a fixture.

Question 21

Both v TSB Bank Plc

Answer 21

Ratio: The purpose of installing an item should be looked at objectively.

Question 22

Hamp v Bygrave

Answer 22

Ratio: Purpose of annexation test prevails over degree of annexation test.

Question 23

Holland v Hodgson

Answer 23

Ratio: the degree of annexation test raises a presumption that the thing in question is, or is not, a fixture. After applying the test, the burden of proving otherwise than the result is passed to whichever party is seeking to establish the opposite by application of the purpose of annexation.

Question 24

D’Eyncourt v Gregory

Answer 24

Facts: A stone garden seat and ornamental statues standing on their own weight were held to be fixtures as forming part of the architectural design of the house and its grounds.

Ratio: Purpose of annexation should be considered when determining if something is a fixture or a chattel. If chattels are incorporated into the architectural design of a building they may be classified as fixtures even though they are not firmly affixed.

Question 25

Kennedy v Secretary of State for Wales

Answer 25

Facts: Three bronze chandeliers and a carillon turret clock in a stately home were held to be fixtures as forming part of the architectural design of the house and its grounds.

Ratio: Purpose of annexation should be considered when determining if something is a fixture or a chattel. If chattels are incorporated into the architectural design of a building they may be classified as fixtures even though they are not firmly affixed.

Question 26

La Salle Recreations v Canadian Camdex Investments Ltd

Answer 26

Facts: Wall-to-wall carpeting in a hotel was considered to be part of the design motif.

Ratio: Purpose of annexation should be considered when determining if something is a fixture or a chattel. If chattels are incorporated into the architectural design of a building they may be classified as fixtures even though they are not firmly affixed.

Question 27

Leigh v Taylor

Answer 27

Facts: A tapestry tacked securely to a wall was held to be a chattel as the purpose of its annexation was merely to display the tapestry to enjoy it.

Ratio: A chattel may be securely affixed to the land but remain a chattel if the purpose of the annexation is the better enjoyment of the chattel as such.

Question 28

Credit Valley Cable TV/FM Ltd v Peel Condominium Corp No (5

Answer 28

Facts: TV cabling and antenna were held in a Canadian case to constitute chattels. The equipments was installed not so much for the permanent improvement of the land but for the enjoyment of the television.

Ratio: A chattel may be securely affixed to the land but remain a chattel if the purpose of the annexation is the better enjoyment of the chattel as such.

Question 29

Chelsea Yacht and Boat Co Ltd v Pope

Answer 29

Facts: Court of Appeal held that a houseboat was a chattel not a fixture, because it could easily be removed from its moorings and service connections and could not be said to be part and parcel of the land.

Ratio: A chattel may be securely affixed to the land but remain a chattel if the purpose of the annexation is the better enjoyment of the chattel as such.

Question 30

Tristmire Ltd v Mew

Answer 30

Facts: Court of Appeal held that houseboats, once capable of floating but now resting on wooden platforms, had not become affixed to the land.

Ratio: A chattel may be securely affixed to the land but remain a chattel if the purpose of the annexation is the better enjoyment of the chattel as such.

Question 31

Both v TSB Bank plc

Answer 31

Facts: Mortgagee took possession of Mr Botham’s flat and sold it, including the contents. Mr Botham argued that many items were chattels, not fixtures, and so he should be given credit for them from the proceeds. Roch LJ examined each item in turn to assess which were fixtures and which were chattels.

Ratio: Tests of degree and purpose of annexation should be a applied to individual objects.