Subsidiary issues Flashcards
Bernstein v Skyviews
No rights to upper airspace
Kelsen v Imperial Tobacco
Your land extends only as high as is necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of land
Wollerton & WIlson v Richard Costain
Crane hanging 50ft above the land was judged to be interfering with the reasonable enjoyment of the land
Lemon v WEbb
- Can cut off any overhanging branches into your land, provided they are interfering with the reasonable use
Ellis v Loftus
Horse putting head over fence was interference
Grigsby v Melville
Coveyance of land includes all land underneath the surface as well
Bocardo SA v Star Energy
You own the land all the way to the centre of the earth, however you do not own the mine oil in the ground
Something found upon the land may be treasure
Treasure Act 1996
Waverly v Fletcher
Anything in the ground is the landowners
Parker v British Airways Board
Parker found gold bracelet which he handed in to BAB, but said if the owner could not be found he wanted it. The item was then sold. Parker successfully sued as BAB had not not manifested an intention to control the land, so the item was by rights the ffinders
Saunders v PIlcher
natural products of the soil are not owned. Annual crops are owned.
Fixtures and chattels
A fixture will pass with the land, a chattel will not
What is the test for a fixture or chattel?
- Degree of annexation
2. Purpose of annexation
Hamp v Bygrave
Purpose test is dominant
Degree of annexation case law
Melluish v BMI – Central heating, elevators, swimming pool are fixtures
Holland v Hodgson – Spinning loom bolted to the floor is a fixture
Aircool Instillations v BT – Air con fixed to wall is a fixture
Dibble v Moore – Movable greenhouse is a chattel
Culling v Tuffnall – Barn resting under own weight is chattel
Purpose of annexation case law
o D’Eyncourt v Gregory – Ornamental chairs and statue were fixtures as they were part of the design of the house
o La Salle Recreations v Canadian Camdex Investments – Wall to wall carpet held in with griper rods was part of design of house so was fixture
o Leigh v Taylor – Tapestry fixed to wall was chattel as purpose of fixation was better enjoyment of object
o Botham v TSB Bank – Looked at loads of items deciding if fixture or chattel
o Chelsea Yacht v Pope – Houseboats are chattels if they can be removed from mooring
o Cardigan v Moore (2012) – Paintings were screwed into the wall. The room had been subsequently decorated in line with the painting so it was argued that the purpose of the annexation was to permanently improve the property so it was a fixture. However the court held that the degree of annexation was no more than that necessary to enjoy the item, so it was therefore a chattel.
Wild animals
- Wild animals are not the subject of ownership
- However land owners does have the right to hunt and catch wild animals
- Dead animals on the land are the landowners
DOctrine of notice
A bona fide purchaser for value of a legal estate without notice – will take the land free of any interests
Actual notice
S198(1) LPA 1925 - binds PFV
Constructive notice
A purchaser must make a proper investigation of the title deeds and inspect the land. Failure to pursue a line of enquiry will mean the purchaser is on constructive notice
• S199(1)(ii)(a) LPA 1925
• Hunt v Luck – Presence of tenant placed purchaser on constructive notice of tenant
Imputed notice
Where the buyer’s agent has notice (S199(1)(ii)(b) LPA 1925) (Kingsnorth Finance v Tizard
