Subsidiary issues

Question 1

Bernstein v Skyviews

Answer 1

No rights to upper airspace

Question 2

Kelsen v Imperial Tobacco

Answer 2

Your land extends only as high as is necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of land

Question 3

Wollerton & WIlson v Richard Costain

Answer 3

Crane hanging 50ft above the land was judged to be interfering with the reasonable enjoyment of the land

Question 4

Lemon v WEbb

Answer 4

• Can cut off any overhanging branches into your land, provided they are interfering with the reasonable use

Question 5

Ellis v Loftus

Answer 5

Horse putting head over fence was interference

Question 6

Grigsby v Melville

Answer 6

Coveyance of land includes all land underneath the surface as well

Question 7

Bocardo SA v Star Energy

Answer 7

You own the land all the way to the centre of the earth, however you do not own the mine oil in the ground

Question 8

Something found upon the land may be treasure

Answer 8

Treasure Act 1996

Question 9

Waverly v Fletcher

Answer 9

Anything in the ground is the landowners

Question 10

Parker v British Airways Board

Answer 10

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

Question 11

Saunders v PIlcher

Answer 11

natural products of the soil are not owned. Annual crops are owned.

Question 12

Fixtures and chattels

Answer 12

A fixture will pass with the land, a chattel will not

Question 13

What is the test for a fixture or chattel?

Answer 13

1. Degree of annexation

2. Purpose of annexation

Question 14

Hamp v Bygrave

Answer 14

Purpose test is dominant

Question 15

Degree of annexation case law

Answer 15

 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

Question 16

Purpose of annexation case law

Answer 16

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.

Question 17

Wild animals

Answer 17

• 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

Question 18

DOctrine of notice

Answer 18

A bona fide purchaser for value of a legal estate without notice – will take the land free of any interests

Question 19

Actual notice

Answer 19

S198(1) LPA 1925 - binds PFV

Question 20

Constructive notice

Answer 20

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

Question 21

Imputed notice

Answer 21

Where the buyer’s agent has notice (S199(1)(ii)(b) LPA 1925) (Kingsnorth Finance v Tizard