The Law of Attachment Flashcards
land: what is attached?
- Attachments
- If something is sufficiently attached to the land then it is considered as a fixture or part of the land. (Remember De Londras’s definition of Real Property: “Rights held in freehold in relation to land, or things attached to land.”)
- Quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit: whatever is attached to the land becomes part of the land
- Disputes: Disputes may arise if it is unclear if something is or is not attached to the land.
What did Blackburn J say in Holland v Hogson 1872?
“There is no doubt that the general maxim of the law is, that what is annexed to the land becomes part of the land; but it is very difficult, if not impossible, to say with precision what constitutes an annexation sufficient for this purpose. It is a question which must depend on the circumstances of each case, and mainly on two circumstances, as indicating the invention, viz., the degree of annexation and the object of annexation.”
What is the usual test for Attachment?
(a) To what extent is the relevant thing attached to the land?
And
(b) What was the intention of the person who attached this thing to the land? (Usually, more emphasis on the intention)
What happened in Leigh v Taylor 1902
Facts:
- Valuable tapestries attached to the walls of a house.
- The tapestries were owned by the tenant for life (person who had the right to live in the house until their death).
- A dispute arose over who owned the tapestries upon the death of the tenant for life. Was it the “remainderman” (person entitled to the house after the person with the right for life died) or was it the heir of the deceased tenant for life who was entitled to his personal property?
a) Extent of attachment:
- “Strips of wood were placed over the paper which covered the walls and were fastened by nails to the walls. Canvas was stretched over the strips of wood and nailed to them, and the tapestries were stretched over the canvas and fastened by tacks to it and the pieces of wood. Mouldings, resting on the surface of the wall and fastened to it, were placed round each piece of tapestry.” (157)
- This was considered as “slightly attached” by the court.
(b) Intention of the person who attached them.
- They were attached to display them and therefore there was no intention to make them part of the property by attaching them
What happened in D’Eyncourt v Gregory 1866?
Facts:
- A tenant for life built and erected a mansion house on the land.
- He attempted to leave marbles, statues, frames, pictures, glasses and tapestry to someone in his will.
- The question was were these items attachments to the land or capable of being bequeathed in a will as property of the tenant for life.
(a) Extent of attachment
-Not attached in a substantial way to the property- on shelves or in garden etc.
(b) Intention of person attaching them
- Many of the items were intended as an essential part of the property and its design.
-Lord Romilly:
“I think it does not depend on whether any cement is used for fixing these articles, or whether they rest by their own weight, but upon this-whether they are strictly and properly part of the architectural design…and put in there as such, as distinguished from mere ornaments to be afterwards added.”
- This approach resulted in some items which were viewed as being part of the overall design of the house being attached to the house whereas others which were not part of overall design were deemed to be unattached.
Held:
“Tapestry, pictures in panels, frames filled with stain, and attached to the walls, and also statues, figures, vases, and stone garden-seats, purchased and placed by the testator, which were essentially part of the house, or of the architectural design of the building or grounds, however fastened, were fixtures, and could not be removed; but the glasses and pictures not in panels, not being part of the building, passed to the” personal heir”.
What happened in Elitestone Ltd. V. Morris [1997] 1 WLR 687 (House of Lords)?
Facts:
- Elitestone owned land on which there were a number of lots.
- On one of these lots Mr and Mrs. Morris owned a bungalow for nearly 20 years.
- The bungalow rested on concrete blocks and therefore was not physically attached to the land.
- They remained on the lot of land under an annual licence.
- Elitestone intended to redevelop the land and sought to repossess the land.
- In response the Morris’s claimed that they were entitled to remain under legislation which protected long term tenants of land.
- Elitestone argued that they could not avail of this protection because the bungalow was not attached to the land and only rested upon it.
Lord Lloyd used the traditional two step test:
(a) To what extent is the relevant thing attached to the land?
And
(b) What was the intention of the person who attached this thing to the land?
-It was acknowledged that:
(1) the house rested on its own weight, but it was not removable without destruction And,
(2) it was put there with the intention that it would form part of the land.
Lloyd LJ:
“A house which is constructed in such a way so as to be removable, whether as a unit or in sections, may well remain a chattel, even though it is connected temporarily to main services such as water and electricity. But a house which is constructed in such a way that it cannot be removed at all, save by destruction, cannot have been intended to remain as a chattel. It must have been intended to form part of the realty [real property- the land].”
What happened in Chelsea Yacht & Boat Club Ltd v Pope 2000?
Facts:
- Was a houseboat part of the land where it was moored?
Tuckey LJ:
“Turning firstly to the degree of annexure it is important to bear in mind that what is required is sufficient attachment to the land so that the chattel becomes part of the land itself. Here the houseboat rested periodically on the riverbed below it and was secured by ropes and perhaps to an extent the services to other structures. It is difficult to see how attachments in this way to the pontoons, the anchor in the riverbed and the rings in the embankment wall could possibly make the houseboat part of the land…. More importantly, however, all these attachments could simply be undone. The houseboat could be moved quite easily without injury to itself or the land. The Agreement contemplates that it will be moved…. the fact that it could and would have to be moved greatly undermines the argument based on permanence.
- Turning then to the object or purpose of annexure, Miss Easty strongly submits that the attachment of the houseboat was to provide a permanent home for its occupant. I do not agree. It is not necessary to annex the houseboat to the land to enable it to be used as a home. The attachments were, like the ship’s anchor referred to by Blackburn J, to prevent the houseboat from being carried by the tide or the weather up or down stream and to provide the services to it.
- For these reasons I conclude that the houseboat has not become part of the land. I support this conclusion on the grounds of common sense. It is common sense that a house built on land is part of the land. (See Lord Lloyd in Elitestone at page 692 H). So too it is common sense that a boat on a river is not part of the land. A boat, albeit one used as a home, is not of the same genus as real property.”
What happened in Re Moormac Development Ltd 2013?
Facts:
- Was crushed limestone placed on land at the initial stages of road building part of the land?
Held:
- Although the limestone rested by its own weight, the intention was that it should form part of the land underneath. Therefore, it was affixed to and part of the land.
What happened in Botham v TSB Bank Plc 1996?
Facts:
- Botham owned the leasehold to a flat.
- The flat was mortgaged with TSB Bank.
- When payment of the mortgage fell into arrears the Bank sold the flat. However, the sale did not meet the total arrears owed so the Bank argued that the contents of the flat were also part of the property.
- The court used various factors to distinguish whether an item was a chattel (personal property) or part of the property.
Roch LJ:
1. Ornamental and there for display purposes (e.g., picture) = chattel
2.If the item can be removed without damage= chattel
- In this context he suggested that if a cooker was free standing it was a chattel, but if built into the kitchen work surface it may be attached.
3.If the item belongs to a third party (e.g., hire purchase) then it will be a chattel unless it was intended “to effect a permanent improvement”.
4. Also suggested that the person who installed the items might determine if they were fixtures (e.g., if installed by builder might be more likely to be considered as attached).
Decision:
- Attached items deemed part of the property:
- Bathroom fittings, towel rails, soap dishes, toilet roll holders etc. and kitchen units and sinks were all deemed to be affixed to the property and therefore part of it.
- These items were put there with the intention that they would be permanent improvements to the property.
Chattels not attached:
- Carpets, curtains and blinds as these could be removed without damaging the integrity of the building. Lights and fittings. Electric and gas fires. Kitchen appliances like toasters, dishwashers etc were also considered to be chattels. Roch LJ noted that these items “remain in position by their own weight and not by virtue of the links between them and the building.”
What are the facts of London Borough of Tower Hamlets v London Borough of Bromley 2015?
Facts:
- This case concerned a bronze sculpture (a draped seated woman by Henry Moore) situated in the garden of a high-rise social housing estate.
- The estate was originally owned by London County Council (later London Borough of Bromley) but subsequently became the property of the Borough of Tower Hamlets.
- Tower Hamlets wished to sell the sculpture. London Borough of Bromley wished the sculpture to be kept on the land “for the benefit of the people of London”.
- Bromley therefore argued that the statue was a chattel which had not been transferred with the estate.
What was the decision in the London Borough case?
Decision:
- “The sculpture is an entire object in itself. It rested on its own weight upon the ground and could be (and was) removed without damage and without damaging its inherent beauty.
- “The object is “an entire object in itself…removed without damage”
- “The sculpture did not form part of an integral design of the Stifford Estate; and whilst it must have been intended to confer some benefits upon the residents of the Stifford Estate it conferred equal benefits upon anyone passing along Jamaica Street or Stepney Green. Upon an objective consideration of all the circumstances of the case I conclude that the sculpture remained a chattel.”
- The sculpture was found not to be part of the land however, because Tower Hamlets had looked after the statue and had control over it for a substantial length of time, the ownership of the chattel had transferred to them by the tort of conversion. A change in mayor led to the statue being retained by Tower Hamlets. For our purposes what is important is that the statue was found not to be part of the land and why.
Summary of the Law of Attachment:
Determining whether something is attached and therefore part of the land seems to depend on two core factors:
- Original test in Leigh v. Taylor & D’Eyncourt v. Gregory:
1. Degree of attachment? As per Elitestone & Tower Hamlets, Destruction is relevant here. (See also Botham built-in cooker/ free standing)
2. Intent of the person attaching the object? Also see how this intent can be related to the mobility of the object in Elitestone and Tower Hamlets.
