Elitestone v Morris1 is a leading case regarding chattels and fixtures. It is because the decision held
by Supreme Court in Elitestone sets a precedent, which binds lower courts to follow that decision to
other similar cases. Furthermore, it outlines the main issues, including the extent of a chattel as
part of realty; and the degree and purpose issues of the chattel’s annexation to the land 2. Apart
from that, triggered strong debates between the judges to which Lord Lloyd concluded that a
removable house is a chattel, but a non-removable house cannot remain a chattel and must
become part of the land3.
Wessex Reserve Forces and Cadets Association v White 4 considers the precedent set in
Elitestone, which identifies the distinction of removable and non-removable objects.
Accordingly, Elitestone is the base in White’s judgement; for instance, Lord Lloyd’s argument in
Elitestone about the three-fold classification of chattels and fixtures was applied in White that
‘an object brought onto land’ could be considered ‘a chattel; a fixture; or part and parcel of the
land itself‘5. To find whether the objects brought on the land remain tenants chattels or became
realty by annexing.
The factual similarities of two cases involve disputes between landlord and tenant about
landlords wish to redevelop the land, arguing upon building’s ownership and the rights of
1
Elitestone v Morris [1997] 1 WLR 687
2
Aruna Nair, ‘Essential Cases: Land Law’ (2nd edn, Oxford University Press 2018)
3
Elitestone v Morris [1997] 1 WLR 687 (WLR) 692-93
4
Wessex Reserve Forces and Cadets Association v White [2005] EWHC 983 (QB), [2005] WL 1363975
5
Elitestone v Morris [1997] 1 WLR 687 (WLR) 691
1
by Supreme Court in Elitestone sets a precedent, which binds lower courts to follow that decision to
other similar cases. Furthermore, it outlines the main issues, including the extent of a chattel as
part of realty; and the degree and purpose issues of the chattel’s annexation to the land 2. Apart
from that, triggered strong debates between the judges to which Lord Lloyd concluded that a
removable house is a chattel, but a non-removable house cannot remain a chattel and must
become part of the land3.
Wessex Reserve Forces and Cadets Association v White 4 considers the precedent set in
Elitestone, which identifies the distinction of removable and non-removable objects.
Accordingly, Elitestone is the base in White’s judgement; for instance, Lord Lloyd’s argument in
Elitestone about the three-fold classification of chattels and fixtures was applied in White that
‘an object brought onto land’ could be considered ‘a chattel; a fixture; or part and parcel of the
land itself‘5. To find whether the objects brought on the land remain tenants chattels or became
realty by annexing.
The factual similarities of two cases involve disputes between landlord and tenant about
landlords wish to redevelop the land, arguing upon building’s ownership and the rights of
1
Elitestone v Morris [1997] 1 WLR 687
2
Aruna Nair, ‘Essential Cases: Land Law’ (2nd edn, Oxford University Press 2018)
3
Elitestone v Morris [1997] 1 WLR 687 (WLR) 692-93
4
Wessex Reserve Forces and Cadets Association v White [2005] EWHC 983 (QB), [2005] WL 1363975
5
Elitestone v Morris [1997] 1 WLR 687 (WLR) 691
1
