unit 1: third party rights and
interests and fixtures and
chattel
Tags Completed
1. What is Land?
1.1 What is Land?
1.2 Fixtures are Part of the Land
2. Concepts of Ownership
2.1 The Doctrine of Tenure
2.2 The Concept of the Estate
2.2.1 Estates in Land
2.2.2 Recognising a Legal Estate
2.3 Relationship between Common Law and Equity
2.3.1 Legal ownership and equitable ownership
3. Third Party Rights and Interests over Land
3.1 Legal Interests
3.1.1 Easements
3.1.2 Mini summary
3.2 Equitable Interests
3.2.1 Equitable interests under trusts
3.2.2 Equitable interests where no trust is involved
3.3 Mini Summary
3.4 Statute
3.5 Licences
3.5.1 Introduction
3.5.2 What is a licence?
3.5.3 General characteristics of a licence
3.5.4 Bare licence
3.5.5 Contractual licence
4. Formalities for the Creation of Estates and Interests
4.1 Creation of Legal Estates and Interests
4.1.1 The requirement for a deed when creating legal estates and legal interests in land
4.2 Disposition of Legal Estates and Interests
unit 1: third party rights and interests and fixtures and chattel 1
, 4.2.1 Formalities required to dispose of or transfer an existing legal estate or interest
4.3 Creation of Equitable Interests
4.3.1 Equitable interests under trusts
4.3.2 Equitable interests where no trust is involved
4.4 Disposition of Equitable Interests
4.5 Mini Summary
5. Introduction to the Conveyancing of Land
5.1 The Stages in a Conveyancing Transaction
5.1.1 The contract
5.1.2 The conveyance or transfer
5.2 Electronic Conveyancing
6. Summary of Interests and Formalities
1. What is Land?
1.1 What is Land?
‘Land’ will include the land itself, all buildings (the manor house, the stable block and
the garage) and mines and minerals (the coal).
Also within the definition are the manor, the advowson, the right of way (an example
of an easement) and the fishing rights (a ‘right, privilege, or benefit’).
The Range Rover and the horses are examples of movable property and are not
within the definition.
Note: Although coal is included in the definition of land, in practice, all interests in
coal are now vested in the Coal Authority under the Coal Industry Act 1994.
Although the definition seems fairly comprehensive, it is not exhaustive. It has been
said that possession of land ‘extends upwards to infinity and downwards to the
centre of the earth’.
However, case law has curtailed the first part of this rule (Bernstein of Leigh
(Baron) v Skyviews & General Ltd [1977] 3 WLR 136).
unit 1: third party rights and interests and fixtures and chattel 2
, Bernstein of Leigh (Baron) v Skyviews & General Ltd [1977] 3 WLR 136
Held: The landowner’s claim to airspace should be restricted to such
height as is necessary for him to enjoy in an ordinary way the land that
he owns and the structures that are placed upon it.
Beyond that he has no more of a claim to airspace than any other
member of the public.
1.2 Fixtures are Part of the Land
A chattel is an item of movable property.
By attaching a chattel to land, it may cease to be a chattel and become a fixture. A
fixture is treated as though it is part of the land to which it is attached.
This may have important consequences for someone who is buying or selling a
house.
If you are selling a house, you might want the item to be classed as a chattel so
that you are free to take it with you when you move.
If you are buying a house, you may want the item to be a fixture so that it is
included in the purchase price that you are paying and must be left there by the
seller.
In practice, the parties’ legal advisers will seek to avoid any difficulties by
ensuring that the contract for sale makes it clear which items are included in the
sale and which are not.
However, if the contract does not contain an appropriate provision dealing with
this, there are rules that will come into play.
The two tests to identify a fixture (Scarman LJ in Berkley v Poulett [1977] 1 EGLR
86):
1. the method and degree of annexation;
The first test requires there to be some degree of physical annexation to
land.
The legal maxim is whatever is attached to the soil becomes part of it.
This raises a presumption that the chattel has become a fixture, although the
application of the second test may rebut the presumption.
unit 1: third party rights and interests and fixtures and chattel 3
, If an object has been affixed to land in such a way that it cannot be removed
without causing serious damage to the realty, then it will be presumed to be
a fixture.
If an object is easily removed, it is easier to argue that it remains a chattel.
2. the object and purpose of the annexation.
The second test looks at the reason for annexing the chattel.
It is possible to argue that an object resting on the ground by its own weight
alone can be a fixture if the purpose of placing it there was to enhance the
realty.
Similarly, an object which is only lightly affixed and which can be removed
without causing damage may be a fixture if, for example, it was placed in a
room to make the room more beautiful as a whole.
Alternatively, an object may be securely affixed such that it raises the
presumption that it is a fixture. However, the reason for annexing the chattel
may be so that it can be enjoyed better as a chattel. In this case, the object
may be a chattel, despite the fact that it is affixed to the land.
The more important test today is the second test: the object and purpose of
the annexation.
unit 1: third party rights and interests and fixtures and chattel 4
, Berkley v Poulett [1977] 1 EGLR 86
The pictures
The pictures had been fixed into recesses in the panelling of the
rooms. The panelling had been installed at the beginning of the
twentieth century and recesses had been left for pictures.
Although this pointed to the pictures being fixtures, the Court of
Appeal did not accept that they were fixtures because the pictures
could not be considered part of a ‘composite mural’. They had
been put there to be enjoyed as pictures and no more.
The sundial
The sundial was small and had been detached from its pedestal
many years before the sale.
It no longer formed part of the realty and was not, therefore, a
fixture.
The statue
Although the statue was heavy, it was easy to remove it from the
plinth on which it stood.
Whilst it could be argued that architectural design was the reason
for the siting of the statue, it was more likely to be the reason for
the siting of the plinth, leaving the owner free to choose what to
place upon the plinth.
The statue was not, therefore, a fixture.
The plinth
The plinth was firmly fixed to the ground and its siting was
architecturally important.
It was, therefore, a fixture.
There are two main exceptions to the rule that you cannot remove fixtures:
1. The first is that a person who is selling land may include a provision in the
contract for sale that gives a right to remove fixtures.
unit 1: third party rights and interests and fixtures and chattel 5
, 2. The second exception arises where the person who has affixed the object is a
tenant. A tenant does have the right, in certain circumstances, to remove fixtures
known as ‘tenant’s fixtures’, that is, trade, agricultural or ornamental fixtures.
D’Eyncourt v Gregory [1866] LR 3 Eq 382
A number of freestanding items were considered by Lord Romilly MR
to be fixtures as they were part of the architectural design of the
property.
Tapestries were fixed into panelling in the walls.
A particular portrait was hung in a certain location.
Although these items could be removed easily and without
damage, it was held that they were essentially a part of the
building itself.
Carved kneeling figures in the great hall and sculptured marbled
vases in the hall were considered to be part of the architectural
design of the hall and staircase.
The lions at the head of the steps in the garden and the 16 stone
garden seats in the garden were also considered to be fixtures.
Although they were freestanding items, they were placed in the
garden as part of the overall architectural design of the property.
Leigh v Taylor [1902] AC 157
Certain tapestries were displayed by being stretched over canvas and
then tacked to a framework of wood which was then nailed to the
walls. Each tapestry was surrounded by a moulding which was also
fastened firmly to the wall.
The House of Lords considered that the tapestries never lost their
character as chattels. The only way that they could be properly
displayed was for them to be fixed to the walls in this manner.
unit 1: third party rights and interests and fixtures and chattel 6
interests and fixtures and
chattel
Tags Completed
1. What is Land?
1.1 What is Land?
1.2 Fixtures are Part of the Land
2. Concepts of Ownership
2.1 The Doctrine of Tenure
2.2 The Concept of the Estate
2.2.1 Estates in Land
2.2.2 Recognising a Legal Estate
2.3 Relationship between Common Law and Equity
2.3.1 Legal ownership and equitable ownership
3. Third Party Rights and Interests over Land
3.1 Legal Interests
3.1.1 Easements
3.1.2 Mini summary
3.2 Equitable Interests
3.2.1 Equitable interests under trusts
3.2.2 Equitable interests where no trust is involved
3.3 Mini Summary
3.4 Statute
3.5 Licences
3.5.1 Introduction
3.5.2 What is a licence?
3.5.3 General characteristics of a licence
3.5.4 Bare licence
3.5.5 Contractual licence
4. Formalities for the Creation of Estates and Interests
4.1 Creation of Legal Estates and Interests
4.1.1 The requirement for a deed when creating legal estates and legal interests in land
4.2 Disposition of Legal Estates and Interests
unit 1: third party rights and interests and fixtures and chattel 1
, 4.2.1 Formalities required to dispose of or transfer an existing legal estate or interest
4.3 Creation of Equitable Interests
4.3.1 Equitable interests under trusts
4.3.2 Equitable interests where no trust is involved
4.4 Disposition of Equitable Interests
4.5 Mini Summary
5. Introduction to the Conveyancing of Land
5.1 The Stages in a Conveyancing Transaction
5.1.1 The contract
5.1.2 The conveyance or transfer
5.2 Electronic Conveyancing
6. Summary of Interests and Formalities
1. What is Land?
1.1 What is Land?
‘Land’ will include the land itself, all buildings (the manor house, the stable block and
the garage) and mines and minerals (the coal).
Also within the definition are the manor, the advowson, the right of way (an example
of an easement) and the fishing rights (a ‘right, privilege, or benefit’).
The Range Rover and the horses are examples of movable property and are not
within the definition.
Note: Although coal is included in the definition of land, in practice, all interests in
coal are now vested in the Coal Authority under the Coal Industry Act 1994.
Although the definition seems fairly comprehensive, it is not exhaustive. It has been
said that possession of land ‘extends upwards to infinity and downwards to the
centre of the earth’.
However, case law has curtailed the first part of this rule (Bernstein of Leigh
(Baron) v Skyviews & General Ltd [1977] 3 WLR 136).
unit 1: third party rights and interests and fixtures and chattel 2
, Bernstein of Leigh (Baron) v Skyviews & General Ltd [1977] 3 WLR 136
Held: The landowner’s claim to airspace should be restricted to such
height as is necessary for him to enjoy in an ordinary way the land that
he owns and the structures that are placed upon it.
Beyond that he has no more of a claim to airspace than any other
member of the public.
1.2 Fixtures are Part of the Land
A chattel is an item of movable property.
By attaching a chattel to land, it may cease to be a chattel and become a fixture. A
fixture is treated as though it is part of the land to which it is attached.
This may have important consequences for someone who is buying or selling a
house.
If you are selling a house, you might want the item to be classed as a chattel so
that you are free to take it with you when you move.
If you are buying a house, you may want the item to be a fixture so that it is
included in the purchase price that you are paying and must be left there by the
seller.
In practice, the parties’ legal advisers will seek to avoid any difficulties by
ensuring that the contract for sale makes it clear which items are included in the
sale and which are not.
However, if the contract does not contain an appropriate provision dealing with
this, there are rules that will come into play.
The two tests to identify a fixture (Scarman LJ in Berkley v Poulett [1977] 1 EGLR
86):
1. the method and degree of annexation;
The first test requires there to be some degree of physical annexation to
land.
The legal maxim is whatever is attached to the soil becomes part of it.
This raises a presumption that the chattel has become a fixture, although the
application of the second test may rebut the presumption.
unit 1: third party rights and interests and fixtures and chattel 3
, If an object has been affixed to land in such a way that it cannot be removed
without causing serious damage to the realty, then it will be presumed to be
a fixture.
If an object is easily removed, it is easier to argue that it remains a chattel.
2. the object and purpose of the annexation.
The second test looks at the reason for annexing the chattel.
It is possible to argue that an object resting on the ground by its own weight
alone can be a fixture if the purpose of placing it there was to enhance the
realty.
Similarly, an object which is only lightly affixed and which can be removed
without causing damage may be a fixture if, for example, it was placed in a
room to make the room more beautiful as a whole.
Alternatively, an object may be securely affixed such that it raises the
presumption that it is a fixture. However, the reason for annexing the chattel
may be so that it can be enjoyed better as a chattel. In this case, the object
may be a chattel, despite the fact that it is affixed to the land.
The more important test today is the second test: the object and purpose of
the annexation.
unit 1: third party rights and interests and fixtures and chattel 4
, Berkley v Poulett [1977] 1 EGLR 86
The pictures
The pictures had been fixed into recesses in the panelling of the
rooms. The panelling had been installed at the beginning of the
twentieth century and recesses had been left for pictures.
Although this pointed to the pictures being fixtures, the Court of
Appeal did not accept that they were fixtures because the pictures
could not be considered part of a ‘composite mural’. They had
been put there to be enjoyed as pictures and no more.
The sundial
The sundial was small and had been detached from its pedestal
many years before the sale.
It no longer formed part of the realty and was not, therefore, a
fixture.
The statue
Although the statue was heavy, it was easy to remove it from the
plinth on which it stood.
Whilst it could be argued that architectural design was the reason
for the siting of the statue, it was more likely to be the reason for
the siting of the plinth, leaving the owner free to choose what to
place upon the plinth.
The statue was not, therefore, a fixture.
The plinth
The plinth was firmly fixed to the ground and its siting was
architecturally important.
It was, therefore, a fixture.
There are two main exceptions to the rule that you cannot remove fixtures:
1. The first is that a person who is selling land may include a provision in the
contract for sale that gives a right to remove fixtures.
unit 1: third party rights and interests and fixtures and chattel 5
, 2. The second exception arises where the person who has affixed the object is a
tenant. A tenant does have the right, in certain circumstances, to remove fixtures
known as ‘tenant’s fixtures’, that is, trade, agricultural or ornamental fixtures.
D’Eyncourt v Gregory [1866] LR 3 Eq 382
A number of freestanding items were considered by Lord Romilly MR
to be fixtures as they were part of the architectural design of the
property.
Tapestries were fixed into panelling in the walls.
A particular portrait was hung in a certain location.
Although these items could be removed easily and without
damage, it was held that they were essentially a part of the
building itself.
Carved kneeling figures in the great hall and sculptured marbled
vases in the hall were considered to be part of the architectural
design of the hall and staircase.
The lions at the head of the steps in the garden and the 16 stone
garden seats in the garden were also considered to be fixtures.
Although they were freestanding items, they were placed in the
garden as part of the overall architectural design of the property.
Leigh v Taylor [1902] AC 157
Certain tapestries were displayed by being stretched over canvas and
then tacked to a framework of wood which was then nailed to the
walls. Each tapestry was surrounded by a moulding which was also
fastened firmly to the wall.
The House of Lords considered that the tapestries never lost their
character as chattels. The only way that they could be properly
displayed was for them to be fixed to the walls in this manner.
unit 1: third party rights and interests and fixtures and chattel 6
