What Is Land? Flashcards
Anchor Brewhouse Developments Ltd v Berkeley House Ltd
The defendant’s crane over sailed on to the claimant’s airspace above their land on a regular basis during the construction of a housing development. No damage was caused. The claimant was entitled to an injunction to prevent the trespass since trespass is actionable per se.
Gotham v TSB Bank
Mr and Mrs Botham defaulted on their mortgage and removed various items before the bank took possession of the house. The Court of Appeal were required to consider whether various household items were fixtures or chattels.
Held:
The bath, lavatory and bathroom fittings were fixtures in addition to the kitchen sink and units. The curtains, carpets, light fittings, kitchen appliances such as washing machines, dishwashers, cookers were chattels.
Parker v British Airways Board
A passenger found a gold bracelet on the floor of an executive lounge at Heathrow airport. He handed it to the owners of the land (British Airways Board) in order for them to attempt to find the true owner; requesting that the item be returned to him should the original owner not be found. When British Airways Board sold the unclaimed bracelet for £850, Mr Parker challenged their claim to the bracelet. The court upheld Mr Parker’s claim, as the bracelet had been found in an area frequented by the public that British Airways Board did not exercise sufficient control over. British Airways Board were thus unable to assert superior title over the bracelet.
Held - The defendants could not assert any title to the bracelet based upon the rights of an occupier over chattels attached to a building. Here, the bracelet was lying loose on the floor. There was no sufficient manifestation of any intention of the defendant to exercise control over lost property before it was found which would otherwise give the defendants a right superior to that of the plaintiff or indeed any right over the bracelet.[3]
Alan Wibberley Building Ltd v Insley
The parties disputed ownership of a strip of land between a garden and a farm. The land was registered. There was a hedge and a ditch along the disputed boundary, it had been conceded in the Court of Appeal that a conveyance of land on the hedge side of the ditch transferred land only up to the middle of the hedge, whereas the application of the hedge and ditch rule suggested that the seller owned the strip between the hedge and the other side of the ditch
Held - The reference to boundaries on an Ordnance Survey plan in a conveyance showing the boundary along the hedge did not displace the assumption that the hedge and ditch were formed within the boundaries of the property.
