Topic Page
Fixtures & Chattels 2
Interests in Land 3
Enforcement in the Registered System 5
Enforcement in the Unregistered System 8
Express or Implied Trusts 10
Implied Trusts: Resulting Trusts 10
Implied Trusts: Constructive Trust 10
Constructive v Resulting 11
Co-Ownership: Equitable/Legal Title in Land 12
Co-Ownership: TLATA Approach 17
Leases 18
Implied Covenants – Repair 22
Implied Covenants – Quiet Enjoyment 23
Leasehold Covenants 24
Pre-1996 Lease 24
Post-1996 Lease 26
Freehold Covenants 30
Easements 34
Mortgages 42
Use the people’s names and specify who the seller and who the buyer is
Be careful of wills – only get equitable shares
1
, FIXTURES AND CHATTELS
Whether X is entitled to LIST PROPERTY depends on whether they’re fixtures or
chattels. Fixtures are attached to a property, treated as part of the land to which
they’re attached, which comes with the land purchase. Chattels are personal,
moveable property which aren’t part of the land unless agreed in the contract.
This should have been dealt with expressly in the contract. If this hasn’t happened,
decisions will be made regarding whether PROPERTY X is a chattel or fixture
following the tests set out in Common Law. X only assumed these to be part of the
purchase price which would suggest this wasn’t expressly dealt with in the contract.
Berkley v Poulett established two tests to determine if an object is a fixture or
chattel:
1. Degree of Annexation: is it securely attached to the land? Would its removal
cause damage?
How securely or otherwise the item is attached, gives an indication of the
strength of your presumption
YES = rebuttably presumed to be a fixture (Buckland v Butterfield)
Freestanding – rebuttable presumption of chattel (Berkley)
2. Purpose of Annexation: this is more important as it will affirm or overturn your
presumption.
Was the item attached to the land so it can be enjoyed in and of itself?
– Yes = chattel
Was the item permanently attached to improve the land or fit into the
architectural style?
– Yes = fixture
If inconclusive: identify ambiguity and argue case both ways using case law.
D’Eyncourt v Gregory Freestanding items which can be easily removed including
tapestries, vases and paintings are fixtures as the court held they
were essentially a part of the building.
Leigh v Taylor Tapestries fixed to the wall never lost their character as chattels.
Only way to display them was to be fixed to the walls in this
manner.
Elitestone Ltd v Morris A house which is constructed in such a way that it cannot be
and another 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. Here, the bungalow rested on concrete blocks. A
house constructed to be removable could be a chattel in some
cases.
Botham v TSB Bank plc Fitted carpets, curtains, light fittings, gas fires aren't fixtures.
White goods manufactured to standard sizes and fitted into
standard sized holes were held to be chattels. Fitted kitchens are
fixtures. Taps are fixtures because of the high degree of
annexation, and because they’re necessary for a room to be used
as a bathroom.
Buckland v Butterfield If the item is securely attached, it raises a rebuttable presumption
that it’s a fixture.
Berkley v Poulett Freestanding items are rebuttably presumed to be chattels, even
very heavy statues. Paintings, statutes, sundials are chattels
2
,Holland v Hodgson When something is attached to the land this will raise a rebuttable
presumption that it’s a fixture
Dibble v Moore Greenhouses are chattels as can be easily removed.
INTERESTS IN LAND
What estate/interest are we looking at?
Is the estate/interest capable of being LEGAL?
LEGAL ESTATES LEGAL INTERESTS
s.1(1) LPA 1925: s.1(2)(a) LPA 1925: Easements capable of
(a) Legal freehold (fee simple absolute in being legal are those granted for the equivalent
possession) of a fee simple (forever) or a time of years
(b) Leasehold (term of years absolute) absolute.
s.60LPA: where no term length stated, it will
be fee simple.
s.1(2)(c): Charge by way of legal mortgage
Leases (s.1(1) and Easements (s.1(2)) will not be legal under LPA 1925 if:
It’s for an uncertain period
The deed hasn’t been carried out correctly (created expressly, signed by both
and in the presence of witnesses).
If the estate/interest isn’t capable of being legal, is it capable of being
EQUITABLE?
All other estates, interests, and charges in or over land take effect as equitable
interests (s.1(3) LPA).
Is it a statutory right?
A statutory right under s.30 Family Law Act 1996 arises if:
The parties are legally married or civil partnership (not divorced);
The home is, has been, or is intended to be the matrimonial home
Identify the usual formalities for creation of the interest
Legal: Registrable Dispositions!
– Freehold
– Legal leasehold
o UNLESS it’s a parol lease: not exceeding 3 years, in possession, at
(best) market rent without a fine (s.54(2) LPA). A lease created in this
way will still be legal, even though it may have been created orally.
– Legal easement
o What if no duration specified on the facts? Equivalent to being fee
simple, if also a deed it’s capable of being a legal easement (s.60)
– Mortgage
By deed (s.52(1) LPA) which must be written, signed, witnessed and clearly state
that it’s a deed (s.1 LP(MP)A 1989). A deed ‘makes it clear on its face that it’s
3
, intended to be a deed by the person making it’ (s.1(2)(a) LP(MP)A 1989). A deed is
validly executed if it is written, signed, witnessed by two witnesses and clearly states
that it’s a deed (s.1(3)(a) LP(MP)A). It must be delivered, meaning the person
executing it acting in such a way as to show an intention to be bound by it. The act
of signing the deed usually signifies this. A delivery may be absolute or to a third
party to hold until some condition is performed by the grantee (escrow).
If it’s not made by deed, it’s void, and will become an equitable interest. This is likely
to be an estate contract.
Equitable Interest
Estate Contracts (includes equitable easement & equitable lease)
- Equitable easement: failure to use a deed when creating an easement
(s.53(1)(a)).
- Equitable lease: failure to use a deed when creating a lease
Can only be made in writing with all the agreed terms (s.2(1) LP(MP)A), signed and
exchanged by both parties (s.2(3) LP(MP)A). If it meets these criteria, the issue is
rescued following the doctrine set in Walsh v Lonsdale: ‘equity sees as done, that
which ought to be done’. Despite not being legal, it will be recognised in equity as an
estate contract.
- Doesn’t apply to parol exception under s.54(2) LPA (s.2(5)(a) LP(MP)A)
- Option is a type of estate contract
Restrictive covenants are never capable of being legal, as it’s not a proprietary
interest, defined as a promise made by the covenantor to the covenantee that they
won’t use the land in a certain way. They must be signed in writing ( s.53(1)(a)).
They’re usually contained in a deed, making it a valid equitable interest (s.53(1)(b)
LPA). MENTION DEED STUFF
Express trusts must be in writing and signed by both parties, with witnesses’
present (s.53(1)(b)).
Implied trusts have no formalities to be created (s.53(2) LPA).
Disposition of Equitable Interest: any sale, gift or other disposition of an equitable
interest must be in writing and signed by the parties to the document (s.53(1)(c)
LPA).
Other Interests
Home Right: no formalities just conditions. The homeowner must be the spouse or
civil partner, alive, and the home must be, was or will be the matrimonial home ( s.30
FLA). Occupation isn’t a criterion. Statutory right to live there: either to move back
or continue living there.
Licence: doesn’t create any proprietary interest in the land. It might allow for access
rights or temporary occupation but doesn’t give any rights to the claimant.
4
Fixtures & Chattels 2
Interests in Land 3
Enforcement in the Registered System 5
Enforcement in the Unregistered System 8
Express or Implied Trusts 10
Implied Trusts: Resulting Trusts 10
Implied Trusts: Constructive Trust 10
Constructive v Resulting 11
Co-Ownership: Equitable/Legal Title in Land 12
Co-Ownership: TLATA Approach 17
Leases 18
Implied Covenants – Repair 22
Implied Covenants – Quiet Enjoyment 23
Leasehold Covenants 24
Pre-1996 Lease 24
Post-1996 Lease 26
Freehold Covenants 30
Easements 34
Mortgages 42
Use the people’s names and specify who the seller and who the buyer is
Be careful of wills – only get equitable shares
1
, FIXTURES AND CHATTELS
Whether X is entitled to LIST PROPERTY depends on whether they’re fixtures or
chattels. Fixtures are attached to a property, treated as part of the land to which
they’re attached, which comes with the land purchase. Chattels are personal,
moveable property which aren’t part of the land unless agreed in the contract.
This should have been dealt with expressly in the contract. If this hasn’t happened,
decisions will be made regarding whether PROPERTY X is a chattel or fixture
following the tests set out in Common Law. X only assumed these to be part of the
purchase price which would suggest this wasn’t expressly dealt with in the contract.
Berkley v Poulett established two tests to determine if an object is a fixture or
chattel:
1. Degree of Annexation: is it securely attached to the land? Would its removal
cause damage?
How securely or otherwise the item is attached, gives an indication of the
strength of your presumption
YES = rebuttably presumed to be a fixture (Buckland v Butterfield)
Freestanding – rebuttable presumption of chattel (Berkley)
2. Purpose of Annexation: this is more important as it will affirm or overturn your
presumption.
Was the item attached to the land so it can be enjoyed in and of itself?
– Yes = chattel
Was the item permanently attached to improve the land or fit into the
architectural style?
– Yes = fixture
If inconclusive: identify ambiguity and argue case both ways using case law.
D’Eyncourt v Gregory Freestanding items which can be easily removed including
tapestries, vases and paintings are fixtures as the court held they
were essentially a part of the building.
Leigh v Taylor Tapestries fixed to the wall never lost their character as chattels.
Only way to display them was to be fixed to the walls in this
manner.
Elitestone Ltd v Morris A house which is constructed in such a way that it cannot be
and another 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. Here, the bungalow rested on concrete blocks. A
house constructed to be removable could be a chattel in some
cases.
Botham v TSB Bank plc Fitted carpets, curtains, light fittings, gas fires aren't fixtures.
White goods manufactured to standard sizes and fitted into
standard sized holes were held to be chattels. Fitted kitchens are
fixtures. Taps are fixtures because of the high degree of
annexation, and because they’re necessary for a room to be used
as a bathroom.
Buckland v Butterfield If the item is securely attached, it raises a rebuttable presumption
that it’s a fixture.
Berkley v Poulett Freestanding items are rebuttably presumed to be chattels, even
very heavy statues. Paintings, statutes, sundials are chattels
2
,Holland v Hodgson When something is attached to the land this will raise a rebuttable
presumption that it’s a fixture
Dibble v Moore Greenhouses are chattels as can be easily removed.
INTERESTS IN LAND
What estate/interest are we looking at?
Is the estate/interest capable of being LEGAL?
LEGAL ESTATES LEGAL INTERESTS
s.1(1) LPA 1925: s.1(2)(a) LPA 1925: Easements capable of
(a) Legal freehold (fee simple absolute in being legal are those granted for the equivalent
possession) of a fee simple (forever) or a time of years
(b) Leasehold (term of years absolute) absolute.
s.60LPA: where no term length stated, it will
be fee simple.
s.1(2)(c): Charge by way of legal mortgage
Leases (s.1(1) and Easements (s.1(2)) will not be legal under LPA 1925 if:
It’s for an uncertain period
The deed hasn’t been carried out correctly (created expressly, signed by both
and in the presence of witnesses).
If the estate/interest isn’t capable of being legal, is it capable of being
EQUITABLE?
All other estates, interests, and charges in or over land take effect as equitable
interests (s.1(3) LPA).
Is it a statutory right?
A statutory right under s.30 Family Law Act 1996 arises if:
The parties are legally married or civil partnership (not divorced);
The home is, has been, or is intended to be the matrimonial home
Identify the usual formalities for creation of the interest
Legal: Registrable Dispositions!
– Freehold
– Legal leasehold
o UNLESS it’s a parol lease: not exceeding 3 years, in possession, at
(best) market rent without a fine (s.54(2) LPA). A lease created in this
way will still be legal, even though it may have been created orally.
– Legal easement
o What if no duration specified on the facts? Equivalent to being fee
simple, if also a deed it’s capable of being a legal easement (s.60)
– Mortgage
By deed (s.52(1) LPA) which must be written, signed, witnessed and clearly state
that it’s a deed (s.1 LP(MP)A 1989). A deed ‘makes it clear on its face that it’s
3
, intended to be a deed by the person making it’ (s.1(2)(a) LP(MP)A 1989). A deed is
validly executed if it is written, signed, witnessed by two witnesses and clearly states
that it’s a deed (s.1(3)(a) LP(MP)A). It must be delivered, meaning the person
executing it acting in such a way as to show an intention to be bound by it. The act
of signing the deed usually signifies this. A delivery may be absolute or to a third
party to hold until some condition is performed by the grantee (escrow).
If it’s not made by deed, it’s void, and will become an equitable interest. This is likely
to be an estate contract.
Equitable Interest
Estate Contracts (includes equitable easement & equitable lease)
- Equitable easement: failure to use a deed when creating an easement
(s.53(1)(a)).
- Equitable lease: failure to use a deed when creating a lease
Can only be made in writing with all the agreed terms (s.2(1) LP(MP)A), signed and
exchanged by both parties (s.2(3) LP(MP)A). If it meets these criteria, the issue is
rescued following the doctrine set in Walsh v Lonsdale: ‘equity sees as done, that
which ought to be done’. Despite not being legal, it will be recognised in equity as an
estate contract.
- Doesn’t apply to parol exception under s.54(2) LPA (s.2(5)(a) LP(MP)A)
- Option is a type of estate contract
Restrictive covenants are never capable of being legal, as it’s not a proprietary
interest, defined as a promise made by the covenantor to the covenantee that they
won’t use the land in a certain way. They must be signed in writing ( s.53(1)(a)).
They’re usually contained in a deed, making it a valid equitable interest (s.53(1)(b)
LPA). MENTION DEED STUFF
Express trusts must be in writing and signed by both parties, with witnesses’
present (s.53(1)(b)).
Implied trusts have no formalities to be created (s.53(2) LPA).
Disposition of Equitable Interest: any sale, gift or other disposition of an equitable
interest must be in writing and signed by the parties to the document (s.53(1)(c)
LPA).
Other Interests
Home Right: no formalities just conditions. The homeowner must be the spouse or
civil partner, alive, and the home must be, was or will be the matrimonial home ( s.30
FLA). Occupation isn’t a criterion. Statutory right to live there: either to move back
or continue living there.
Licence: doesn’t create any proprietary interest in the land. It might allow for access
rights or temporary occupation but doesn’t give any rights to the claimant.
4
