W1 Nature and Application Flashcards
Name
Detail
What is the authority for the legal definition of land?
S205(1)(ix) Law of Property Act 1925
How far above the land do property rights extend?
Airspace/height as necessary for ordinary enjoyment and use.
Authority: Bernstein v Skyviews
How far below the land do property rights extend?
Scope of potential access.
Authority: Bocardo v Star Energy
Bernstein v Skyviews
Facts: D took an aerial photograph of C’s country house and offered to sell it to him. C tried to claim damages for trespass/invasion of privacy. Court found there was no infringement of C’s rights in the air space above his property.
Significance: Authority for how far above a property rights extend: such a height as is necessary for ordinary use and enjoyment of land and the structures upon it.
Bocardo v Star Energy
Facts: Oil company constructing wells 800 to 3000 feet below the surface of land was found to be trespassing.
Significance: Owner of the land also owns the strata beneath it, including the minerals found there (unless there has been an alienation), unless the depth is beyond the scope of potential access.
Kelsen v Imperial Tobacco
Facts: D’s sign protruded into C’s airspace above his shop. Was found to be trespassing.
Significance: A lease of land includes the air space above. Can be trespassing without damage or loss.
What are corporeal hereditaments?
Physical things included in the definition of land. Includes fixtures but not chattels.
What are incorporeal hereditaments?
Non-physical things included in land, i.e. rights in land such as easements
What are fixtures?
Things affixed to the land whose ownership rights pass with the land.
What are chattels?
Things on the land which are not part of the land, and so their ownership rights do not pass with the land.
Are fixtures included in the transfer of ownership when land is bought/sold?
Yes, unless contracted otherwise. Authority: s62(1) LPA 1925.
Are chattels included in the transfer of ownership when land is bought/sold?
No
Holland v Hodgson
Facts: Owner of a mill who was also a spinner mortgaged the mill to the defendants. When C went bankrupt, D seized looms in the mill that had been nailed down. Court found that they were affixed enough to be fixtures and assed with the land.
Significance: Establishes the test for whether something is a fixture or chattel - degree and purpose of annexation.
What is the test for determining if something is a fixture or a chattel?
Two stage test, as set out in Holland v Hodgson:
1) To what degree is it annexed? I.e. how permanently is it affixed?
2) What is the purpose of annexation? Was it intended as a long-term improvement to the land (like a fixture), or just for enjoyment of the item (more like a chattel)?
What is the degree of annexation test?
How permanently affixed is the feature?
Authority: Holland v Hodgson
What is the purpose of annexation test?
Was the purpose intended to be a long-term improvement to the land (indicating fixture) or just to enjoy the item itself (if so, chattel)?
Authority: Hamp v Bygrave
Hamp v Bygrave
Facts: Claimant complained when the seller of a house removed a number of garden fittings, mainly stone ornaments resting on their own weight. They had been included in the particulars of sale and pre-contract inquiries. Judge applied the fixtures vs chattels test (degree and purpose of annexation). Judge held that including them in particular made them fixtures and were included in sale.
Significance: Restatement of the purpose of annexation test.
Is the degree of annexation test objective or subjective?
Objective
Is the purpose of annexation test objective or subjective?
Objective
What happens if the degree and purpose of annexation tests yield different results?
Purpose takes precedence
Elitestone v Morris
Facts: Issue was whether a chalet which rested on its own weight and wasn’t fixed to the ground was a fixture or a chattel. Occupiers needed protection under security of tenure provisions, so needed it to be a fixture. HoL decided that even though it wasn’t fixed to the land, it was difficult to move that you would have to destroy the chalet to move it, so it was a fixture.
Significance: If something would be destroyed by its removal from the land, it is a fixture.
D’Eyncourt v Gregory
Facts: A mansion contained tapestries, artwork, statues, etc. Question was whether these passed under a will to the same person as the mansion that housed them.
Significance: Things that are part of the architectural design of the house are fixtures (tapestries, etc) but things not attached and easily removed (glasses, pictures not in panels) were not.
Are things growing naturally on the land included in the definition of land?
Yes
Authority: Stukeley v Butler
Are things being cultivated on the land included in the definition of land?
Yes
Authority: Stukeley v Butler
Are animals naturally occuring on the land included in the definition of land?
When alive, the landowner has qualified property rights over them - can hunt them on their land. Once they have been caught and killed, they are absolute property of the landowner.
Authority: Blades v Higgs
Is property lost on the land included in the land/belonging to the landowner?
Only if the owner of the item cannot be found. Additional, in a public/quasi-public space, landowner must signpost to the public their intention to control the land and claim ownership over lost property. If they fail to do this, the finder has the best claim.
Authority: Parker v British Airways
Parker v British Airways
Facts: Bracelet was lost in BA airport lounge.
Significance: Lays out the test for ownership in public/quasi-public spaces - onus on landowner to sign to public their intention to control land and claim ownership of things on the land.
Do things buried in the land belong to the landowner?
Yes, essentially are fixtures.
Authority: Waverley BC v Fletcher
Waverley BC v Fletcher
Facts: A brooch was buried in a park belonging to the council and was found by D using a metal detector. Council argued it belonged to them, as it was buried.
Significance: Buried things belong to landowner.
What is a proprietary right?
A right in the property itself (in rem), meaning it can bind third parties who haven’t granted the right themselves.
What is a personal right?
A right in personam is typically a contractual right. Rules of privity of contract apply and the typical remedy is damages (as opposed to proprietary remedies such as return of the land).
King v David Allen & Sons Billposting
Facts: David Allen were given a license (in personam) to put posters on a cinema. Cinema owner transferred ownership. David Allen tried to assert right to new owners, but lacked a proprietary right in the cinema (i.e. a right in rem)
Significance: Example of difference between proprietary and personal right during transfers of ownership.
Hill v Tupper
Facts: Pleasureboat business wanted exclusive right to put pleasureboat on canal, competitor issue. Claimed they had an easement. Exclusive right didn’t quite fit the definition of an easement.
Significance: Courts are reluctant to expand the list of proprietary rights in land. Also, definition of easement as requiring accommodation of the dominant tenement, and how this can present an issue for business use.
What section of the LPA 1925 lists the proprietary rights over land?
s1
Equity allows a variety of ______________ models
Beneficial ownership
What are the categories of proprietary rights over land?
Ownership-type rights - e.g. freehold/leasehold
Lesser rights - e.g. easement/mortgage
Possessory rights - e.g. adverse possession
Licenses - e.g. license to occupy
What is relativity of title?
There is a hierarchy of claims. Your rights are only as good as their status against others’ rights.
Who is the only party with true ownership rights over England and Wales?
The Crown
Manchester Airport Plc v Dutton
Facts: Environmental protesters invaded a national trust, airport had been licenced to fell the trees. National Trust was not willing to bring eviction proceedings against the protesters. Manchester Airport wanted to get the eviction, but didn’t have proprietary rights as only a licence. Court interpreted the legislation to give Manchester Airport’s claim preference.
Significance: Example of judicial intervention and relativity of title.
What are formalities?
Documents and procedures required to transfer rights in land. i.e. things that make it “official”.
What is proprietary estoppel?
When an individual acts to their detriment based on a promise made regarding an interest in land
What qualifies as an informal lease?
A lease of 3 years or less
Why are proprietary rights better than personal rights?
Proprietary rights can potentially be asserted against third parties i.e. all future owners. Personal rights are usually specific to the parties who agreed them.
How do proprietary rights affect the value of land?
They are very beneficial to the right-holder and generally decrease the value of the land to the owner/prospective owner
What are the rules on notice regarding a future transaction of land?
During sale, rules say the purchaser should be notified of pre-existing interests which affect that land. New purchaser can make an informed decision about the impact on the value and usefulness of the land.
What is registered land?
Land registered on His Majesty’s Land Registry, including details of all proprietary rights
What is unregistered land?
Land not registered on His Majesty’s Land Registry. Transactional searches rely on paper title deeds and the Land Charges register.
What is the Land Charges register?
Allows individuals with an interest in unregistered land to publish a public notification
When does a new prospective owner not necessarily need to be notified of pre-existing interests?
When land is gifted
Other than the Land Registry and the Land Charges register, how can you identify a proprietary right in land?
Inspecting the land for signs of rights
Examining the title documentation
Submitting a title query
Stukeley v Butler
Facts: Dispute about some trees on an estate.
Significance: Things grown on the land are part of the land.
Blades v Higgs
Facts: A trespasser killed and stole rabbits from the Marquis of Exeter’s estate.
Significance: Wild animals are under the qualified control of the landowner while alive, and are absolute property once dead.
Facts: D took an aerial photograph of C’s country house and offered to sell it to him. C tried to claim damages for trespass/invasion of privacy. Court found there was no infringement of C’s rights in the air space above his property.
Significance: Authority for how far above a property rights extend: such a height as is necessary for ordinary use and enjoyment of land and the structures upon it.
Bernstein v Skyviews
Facts: Oil company constructing wells 800 to 3000 feet below the surface of land was found to be trespassing.
Significance: Owner of the land also owns the strata beneath it, including the minerals found there (unless there has been an alienation), unless the depth is beyond the scope of potential access.
Bocardo v Star Energy
Facts: D’s sign protruded into C’s airspace above his shop. Was found to be trespassing.
Significance: A lease of land includes the air space above. Can be trespassing without damage or loss.
Kelsen v Imperial Tobacco
Facts: Owner of a mill who was also a spinner mortgaged the mill to the defendants. When C went bankrupt, D seized looms in the mill that had been nailed down. Court found that they were affixed enough to be fixtures and assed with the land.
Significance: Establishes the test for whether something is a fixture or chattel - degree and purpose of annexation.
Holland v Hodgson
Facts: Claimant complained when the seller of a house removed a number of garden fittings, mainly stone ornaments resting on their own weight. They had been included in the particulars of sale and pre-contract inquiries. Judge applied the fixtures vs chattels test (degree and purpose of annexation). Judge held that including them in particular made them fixtures and were included in sale.
Significance: Restatement of the purpose of annexation test.
Hamp v Bygrave
Facts: Issue was whether a chalet which rested on its own weight and wasn’t fixed to the ground was a fixture or a chattel. Occupiers needed protection under security of tenure provisions, so needed it to be a fixture. HoL decided that even though it wasn’t fixed to the land, it was difficult to move that you would have to destroy the chalet to move it, so it was a fixture.
Significance: If something would be destroyed by its removal from the land, it is a fixture.
Elitestone v Morris
Facts: A mansion contained tapestries, artwork, statues, etc. Question was whether these passed under a will to the same person as the mansion that housed them.
Significance: Things that are part of the architectural design of the house are fixtures (tapestries, etc) but things not attached and easily removed (glasses, pictures not in panels) were not.
D’Eyncourt v Gregory
Facts: Bracelet was lost in BA airport lounge.
Significance: Lays out the test for ownership in public/quasi-public spaces - onus on landowner to sign to public their intention to control land and claim ownership of things on the land.
Parker v British Airways
Facts: A brooch was buried in a park belonging to the council and was found by D using a metal detector. Council argued it belonged to them, as it was buried.
Significance: Buried things belong to landowner.
Waverley BC v Fletcher
Facts: David Allen were given a license (in personam) to put posters on a cinema. Cinema owner transferred ownership. David Allen tried to assert right to new owners, but lacked a proprietary right in the cinema (i.e. a right in rem)
Significance: Example of difference between proprietary and personal right during transfers of ownership.
King v David Allen & Sons Billposting
Facts: Pleasureboat business wanted exclusive right to put pleasureboat on canal, competitor issue. Claimed they had an easement. Exclusive right didn’t quite fit the definition of an easement.
Significance: Courts are reluctant to expand the list of proprietary rights in land. Also, definition of easement as requiring accommodation of the dominant tenement, and how this can present an issue for business use.
Hill v Tupper
Facts: Environmental protesters invaded a national trust, airport had been licenced to fell the trees. National Trust was not willing to bring eviction proceedings against the protesters. Manchester Airport wanted to get the eviction, but didn’t have proprietary rights as only a licence. Court interpreted the legislation to give Manchester Airport’s claim preference.
Significance: Example of judicial intervention and relativity of title.
Manchester Airport Plc v Dutton
