Land and Property Flashcards
Elitestone v Morris
Wooden chalet must be demolished to be removed - therefore it is a fixture
Moormac Developments
Attempt to reclaim stones from business bankruptcy. Although stones weren’t affixed with materials, held they were fixtures not chattels as they were placed with intention of forming a road
Botham v TSB
Cabinets are fixtures as they can’t moved. Machines like dishwashers can be moved and therefore are chattels.
Maye v Revenue
VAT is lower for fixtures. Is an aerial a fixture? Yes. They are secured to the house and have permanent intention.
Bernstein v Skyviews
Landowners only have rights to airspace above land so far as needed for use or enjoyment of property
Bocardo SA v Star Energy
Landowners only have rights to subsoil so far as practical factors like depth or land conditions
Elwes v Briggs
Boat six feet below ruled to be property of landowner even though they didn’t know the boat existed - subsoil rights
Armory v Delamaire
Boy found a jewel and brought it to jewelers. Court ruled the boy had a better title to it than the jeweler even though the jeweler claimed a third party may own it
Hanna v Peel
A soldier found a brooch in a house he didn’t own. Court held he had a better right to it than the houseowner as the houseowner showed no intention to possess the brooch.
Parker v BA
Parker found a bracelet in BA lounge. Court held he had a better claim than BA unless the true owner came forward, as he found it and took care of it. BA would only have a better claim if they had shown intention to control things found on their property.
AG of Duchy of Lancaster v Overton Farms
CoA reaffirmed treasure trove doctrine only applies to objects with significant gold and silver.
Grave goods are not treasure trove.
AG v Trustees of British Museum
Farmer found gold objects. British museum said they weren’t buried with intention for recovery so they weren’t treasure trove. They failed to rebut this presumption so the court held they were.
Webb v Ireland
Digging without permission, they found treasure and sought ownership. The court held they had no superior rights and the treasure trove belonged to Ireland.
Hill v Tupper
Hill had a lease with a canal company giving him exclusive rights to lease pleasure boats on the canal. Tupper kept his boats on the canal. Hill sued for infringement of his rights. However, Hill had a personal right - an exclusive right, but not a property right. It’s not profit a prendre. Tupper has the right to keep boats on the canal as he has no part in Hill’s contract.
Victoria Park Racing v Taylor
Plaintiffs owned a racecourse and sought an injunction against defendants broadcasting race descriptions. Claimed it was an infringement of property rights, caused loss of income and was a nuisance. Court held the defendants didn’t need land permission - there is no infringement of property rights and they didn’t interfere with his use of land.
Kearry v Pattinson
Pattinson lost his bees, which are wild by nature. When the flew away, he lost possession. When they were in his hive, he had possession. If another beekeeper captures his now wild bees, they have possession. If they take them from his hive, they are interfering with his possession and he may object.
