INTRODUCTION TO LAND LAW EXAM
QUESTIONS WITH COMPLETE
ANSWERS
In what case did the court determine the chattel/fixture status of a series of everyday
household items? What considerations did they set out? - Answer-** Botham v TSB
(1996) **
- here, the court was called upon to determine the status of a series of everyday
household items. If they proved to be fixtures, the mortgage lender who had brought
possession proceedings against Mr Botham would be ablate sell the land to a new
purchaser wit the fixtures included. any chattels would belong to Mr Botham.
Roch LJ set out a series of considerations that will be relevant to the court when
deciding whether a chattel has become a fixture;
1. whether the item is ornamental and attachment is sampling to enable the item to
be enjoyed (this indicates a chattel)
2. the damage that removal of the item would cause: the greater the damage, the
more likely the item is a fixture
3. the lifespan of the item: the more limited the lifespan, the more likely the item is a
chattel
4. the type of person who installed or attached the item to the land: a builder is more
likely to install a fixture; a contractor or landowner is more likely to install a chattel
if the owner of land wishes to sever a fixture, can they? - Answer-when a chattel has
become a fixture, the landowner is entirely within her rights to sever that fixture from
the land and return its status to a chattel.
this is because the landowner is the only person with a claim to the fixture - this is
the right of removal or severance of a fixture
where the owner of land is selling her land to a purchaser, can she sever a fixture
from this land? - Answer-in most sales today, the parties enter into a contract, which
clarifies which items will and will not be included then the land is sold. this
supersedes the rules on chattel/fixtures.
from the moment the contract is made, the vendor can only remove or sever fixtures
from the land as provided for in the contract (if the vendor wants to exclude a fixture
from the sale, she can easily make sure this is in the contract before it is signed)
any fixtures which aren't covered by the contract will pass automatically upon sale.
can a tenant remove fixtures they installed on leased land when the landlord-tenant
relationship comes to an end? - Answer-- it is common for a tenant to bring chattels
onto leased land which then become fixtures
- during the lifetime of the lease, the tenant is free to remove the fixtures
- when the landlord-tenant relationship comes to an end, at common law, the starting
point is that any fixture belongs to the landlord (R v Smith [1974])
,- however, there are three exceptions when a tenant is able to remove or sever a
fixture:
1. the removal or severance of trade fixtures
2. the removal or severance of ornamental and domestic features
3. the right of agricultural tenants to remove or sever fixtures
one exception to the general rule that any fixtures on the property after the landlord-
tenant relationship ends belongs to the landlord is the removal or severance of trade
fixtures. What does this mean and what case is an example of this? - Answer-a
tenant is able to remove so-called 'trade-fixtures' which she installed during the
lifetime of her lease.
Mancetter Developments v Garmason Ltd (1986), - tenants were able to remove an
extractor fan at the end of their tenancy as the fan had been installed as part of the
running of a chemicals business from the leased land.
one exception to the general rule that any fixtures on the property after the landlord-
tenant relationship ends belongs to the landlord is the removal or severance of
ornamental and domestic features. What does this mean and what case is an
example of this? - Answer-Items installed in the property for an ornamental,
decorative or domestic purpose can be removed when the tenancy comes to an end,
but only if removal is possible without causing irreparable damage to property.
Spyer v Phillipson (1931)
- a tenant installed an antique wooden panelling and fireplaces to the leased
property in order to recreate a Jacobean-style design.
- the court held that the tenant was entitled to remove the fixtures when the tenancy
ended as the items ere ornamental, decorative fixtures. The items were only affixed
with screws and could therefore be removed with ease.
one exception to the general rule that any fixtures on the property after the landlord-
tenant relationship ends belongs to the landlord is the right of agricultural tenants to
remove or sever fixtures . What does this mean and from where does this derive its
authority? - Answer-authority = Agricultural Holdings Act 1986
- this allows an agricultural tenant to remove fixtures installed during the lease at the
termination of the lease or within two months of the lease ending.
- an agricultural tenant can only remove fixtures were certain conditions have been
satisfied.
What is the personal / proprietary divide? - Answer--proprietary rights are capable of
binding (being enforceable) against third parties, whereas personal rights bind only
the parties that created the rights.
what kind of rights are rights in land? - Answer-rights in land are proprietary rights,
meaning they are capable of binding third parties
In National Provincial Bank v Ainsworth (1965) Lord Wilberforce established the
traditional four-step test for proprietary status. What is it? - Answer-for a right to be
proprietary, it must:
- be definable
, - be identifiable by third parties
- be capable in its nature of assumption by third parties
- have some degree of permanence or stability
in what case did Lord Wilberforce establish the traditional four-step test for
proprietary status and what are the case facts? - Answer-National Provincial Bank v
Ainsworth (1965)
- Lord Wilberforce had to determine whether a wife living in a former matrimonial
home enjoyed a proprietary right, despite not owning any part of the property
- if the right was proprietary, it might be capable of being binding on the National
Provincial Bank, who had loaned money towards the purchase of the property, and
the wife would be able to defeat the bank's claim to possession of the land
- if the right was personal only, it would not be binding and would not affect the bank.
- Lord Wilberforce held that the right was personal in nature, as it had none of the
criteria in the four-step test
critique Lord Wilberforce's four-step proprietary right test? - Answer-- the test is
circular and largely unhelpful:
he says a right will be proprietary and potentially binding on third parties when it is
'capable in its nature of assumption by third parties' - here he seems to suggest that
a right will bind third parties when it is capable of binding third parties
- however, this test does demonstrate that proprietary rights are those that are
rooted in and affixed to the land such that they can survive changes in ownership or
occupation.
common socage - Answer-the only tenure that remains. it is a free tenure of land
tenure - Answer-this comes from the post-1066 reforms of the feudal system by
William the Conqueror. The monarch held all land, and his subjects could enjoy
rights in land as tenants of the monarch and they provided services to the monarch
in return. the terms on which rights in land were enjoyed was called tenure.
nowadays, all of the feudal tenures have been abolished ; the only one that remains
is the fre tenure of common socage.
tenure today just kind of means the terms on which rights in land are enjoyed.
what happens if a landowner dies without having made a will and without any
relatives? - Answer-the land passes back to the crown, as all land today is still
directly held by the crown.
what is an estate in land? - Answer-an estate in land describes how long a person is
entitled to enjoy rights of use and possession of that land
what are the two types of legal estate that exist today, and from where does their
authority derive? - Answer-authority = s.1 of the Law of Property Act 1925
(1) the freehold estate
QUESTIONS WITH COMPLETE
ANSWERS
In what case did the court determine the chattel/fixture status of a series of everyday
household items? What considerations did they set out? - Answer-** Botham v TSB
(1996) **
- here, the court was called upon to determine the status of a series of everyday
household items. If they proved to be fixtures, the mortgage lender who had brought
possession proceedings against Mr Botham would be ablate sell the land to a new
purchaser wit the fixtures included. any chattels would belong to Mr Botham.
Roch LJ set out a series of considerations that will be relevant to the court when
deciding whether a chattel has become a fixture;
1. whether the item is ornamental and attachment is sampling to enable the item to
be enjoyed (this indicates a chattel)
2. the damage that removal of the item would cause: the greater the damage, the
more likely the item is a fixture
3. the lifespan of the item: the more limited the lifespan, the more likely the item is a
chattel
4. the type of person who installed or attached the item to the land: a builder is more
likely to install a fixture; a contractor or landowner is more likely to install a chattel
if the owner of land wishes to sever a fixture, can they? - Answer-when a chattel has
become a fixture, the landowner is entirely within her rights to sever that fixture from
the land and return its status to a chattel.
this is because the landowner is the only person with a claim to the fixture - this is
the right of removal or severance of a fixture
where the owner of land is selling her land to a purchaser, can she sever a fixture
from this land? - Answer-in most sales today, the parties enter into a contract, which
clarifies which items will and will not be included then the land is sold. this
supersedes the rules on chattel/fixtures.
from the moment the contract is made, the vendor can only remove or sever fixtures
from the land as provided for in the contract (if the vendor wants to exclude a fixture
from the sale, she can easily make sure this is in the contract before it is signed)
any fixtures which aren't covered by the contract will pass automatically upon sale.
can a tenant remove fixtures they installed on leased land when the landlord-tenant
relationship comes to an end? - Answer-- it is common for a tenant to bring chattels
onto leased land which then become fixtures
- during the lifetime of the lease, the tenant is free to remove the fixtures
- when the landlord-tenant relationship comes to an end, at common law, the starting
point is that any fixture belongs to the landlord (R v Smith [1974])
,- however, there are three exceptions when a tenant is able to remove or sever a
fixture:
1. the removal or severance of trade fixtures
2. the removal or severance of ornamental and domestic features
3. the right of agricultural tenants to remove or sever fixtures
one exception to the general rule that any fixtures on the property after the landlord-
tenant relationship ends belongs to the landlord is the removal or severance of trade
fixtures. What does this mean and what case is an example of this? - Answer-a
tenant is able to remove so-called 'trade-fixtures' which she installed during the
lifetime of her lease.
Mancetter Developments v Garmason Ltd (1986), - tenants were able to remove an
extractor fan at the end of their tenancy as the fan had been installed as part of the
running of a chemicals business from the leased land.
one exception to the general rule that any fixtures on the property after the landlord-
tenant relationship ends belongs to the landlord is the removal or severance of
ornamental and domestic features. What does this mean and what case is an
example of this? - Answer-Items installed in the property for an ornamental,
decorative or domestic purpose can be removed when the tenancy comes to an end,
but only if removal is possible without causing irreparable damage to property.
Spyer v Phillipson (1931)
- a tenant installed an antique wooden panelling and fireplaces to the leased
property in order to recreate a Jacobean-style design.
- the court held that the tenant was entitled to remove the fixtures when the tenancy
ended as the items ere ornamental, decorative fixtures. The items were only affixed
with screws and could therefore be removed with ease.
one exception to the general rule that any fixtures on the property after the landlord-
tenant relationship ends belongs to the landlord is the right of agricultural tenants to
remove or sever fixtures . What does this mean and from where does this derive its
authority? - Answer-authority = Agricultural Holdings Act 1986
- this allows an agricultural tenant to remove fixtures installed during the lease at the
termination of the lease or within two months of the lease ending.
- an agricultural tenant can only remove fixtures were certain conditions have been
satisfied.
What is the personal / proprietary divide? - Answer--proprietary rights are capable of
binding (being enforceable) against third parties, whereas personal rights bind only
the parties that created the rights.
what kind of rights are rights in land? - Answer-rights in land are proprietary rights,
meaning they are capable of binding third parties
In National Provincial Bank v Ainsworth (1965) Lord Wilberforce established the
traditional four-step test for proprietary status. What is it? - Answer-for a right to be
proprietary, it must:
- be definable
, - be identifiable by third parties
- be capable in its nature of assumption by third parties
- have some degree of permanence or stability
in what case did Lord Wilberforce establish the traditional four-step test for
proprietary status and what are the case facts? - Answer-National Provincial Bank v
Ainsworth (1965)
- Lord Wilberforce had to determine whether a wife living in a former matrimonial
home enjoyed a proprietary right, despite not owning any part of the property
- if the right was proprietary, it might be capable of being binding on the National
Provincial Bank, who had loaned money towards the purchase of the property, and
the wife would be able to defeat the bank's claim to possession of the land
- if the right was personal only, it would not be binding and would not affect the bank.
- Lord Wilberforce held that the right was personal in nature, as it had none of the
criteria in the four-step test
critique Lord Wilberforce's four-step proprietary right test? - Answer-- the test is
circular and largely unhelpful:
he says a right will be proprietary and potentially binding on third parties when it is
'capable in its nature of assumption by third parties' - here he seems to suggest that
a right will bind third parties when it is capable of binding third parties
- however, this test does demonstrate that proprietary rights are those that are
rooted in and affixed to the land such that they can survive changes in ownership or
occupation.
common socage - Answer-the only tenure that remains. it is a free tenure of land
tenure - Answer-this comes from the post-1066 reforms of the feudal system by
William the Conqueror. The monarch held all land, and his subjects could enjoy
rights in land as tenants of the monarch and they provided services to the monarch
in return. the terms on which rights in land were enjoyed was called tenure.
nowadays, all of the feudal tenures have been abolished ; the only one that remains
is the fre tenure of common socage.
tenure today just kind of means the terms on which rights in land are enjoyed.
what happens if a landowner dies without having made a will and without any
relatives? - Answer-the land passes back to the crown, as all land today is still
directly held by the crown.
what is an estate in land? - Answer-an estate in land describes how long a person is
entitled to enjoy rights of use and possession of that land
what are the two types of legal estate that exist today, and from where does their
authority derive? - Answer-authority = s.1 of the Law of Property Act 1925
(1) the freehold estate
