LAND LAW LOST ITEMS, ITEMS
ABOVE AND BELOW LAND AND
CHATTELS EXAM QUESTIONS WITH
CORRECT ANSWERS
Statute for ownership and upper strata? - Answer-Civil aviation act 1982 - s76 -
should not fly below 200 metres.
Lower stratum (case 1) - Answer-Kelsen v Imperial Tobacco [1957] 2 QB 334:
advertising sign which projected into the airspace above the claimant's shop - only
need to remove the portion that is overhanging.
Lower stratum (case 2) - Answer-Laiqat v Majid [2005] EWHC 1305: Extractor fan
which projected by 750 millimetres
What about a crane overhanging land? - Answer-Anchor Brewhouse developments v
Berkley house (1987) 2 EGLR 173
Crane on D's land swung over the claimant's land. D argued that due to Bernstein
the judge had to balance the rights of C and D.
Scott J - "if an adjoining owner places a structure on his land that overhangs the
neigbours land, he thereby takes into his possession air space to which his neighbor
is entitled. That in my judgement is a trespass"
It is possible to reconcile these - Bernstein was concerned with flying over the land
whereas Anchor concerned invasion of land by an object standing on neighboring
land.
What about objects attached to the land? (general rule) - Answer-See section 62 of
LPA 1925: The general rule is whatever is attached to the land becomes part of it,
often regarded as fixtures. While objects not attached to the land are chattels.
What is the three fold test for objects attached to the land? - Answer-Lord Lloyd in
Elitestone Ltd v Morris and another [1977] 1 WLR 687 noted that rather than the
traditional distinction of fixtures and chattel, he preferred the three-fold distinction as
given by Woodfall, Landlord and Tenant (looseleaf edition): An object brought on to
the land may be classified as (a) a chattel; (b) a fixture or (c) part and parcel of the
land itself
Holland v Hodgson (1872) LR 7 CP 328 - Case factss - Answer-The owner of a mill
purchased some looms for use in his mill. They were attached to the stone floor by
nails driven into wooden beams. They could quite easily be removed. The owner
then mortgaged the mill and failed to keep up the payments and the mill was
repossessed. The question for the court was whether the looms were fixtures
forming part of the land or whether they remained chattels.
, Held:
The looms had become fixtures and thus formed part of the land mortgaged.
Holland v Hodgson - Blackburn quote - Answer-Blackburn J introduced the degree
and object of annexation test:
" an article which is affixed to the land even slightly is to be considered as part of the
land, unless the circumstances are such as to shew that it was intended to all along
continue a chattel, the onus lying on those who contend that it is a chattel."
What is the two step test for chattels and fixtures? - Answer-Step 1: General maxim:
Whatever is annexed to the land becomes part of the land but what is annexation?
Step 2: TEST: Depends on the circumstances as indicating INTENTION but mainly
two circumstances: (i) degree of annexation and
(ii) object/purpose of annexation.
* Note that the evidence for degree and purpose may overlap.
Degree of annexation - three key considerations - Answer-1. Is it resting on its own
weight?
2. Does it require skilful removal?
3. Will the removal cause damage?
Degree of annexation - Holland - Answer-If attached by no more than its own weight,
it is a chattel (citing Wiltshire) but if the intention was not to make it part of the land, it
is to be so treated citing D'Enycourt) + illustration from case: dry stone blocks placed
on top of the other with intention to build wall vs. same stack in a building merchant's
yard
Degree of annexation - skillful removal - Answer-Berkley v Poulett (1988) 241 EG
911 arguing that degree of annexation is less important than purpose of annexation
and no longer conclusive (Lord Scarman) [but he doesn't say irrelevant] - note the
facts here, the court considers whether any skilful removal was needed: pictures
required skilful removal, sundial detached years earlier and statute, though heavy,
not requiring skilful removal.
Degree of annexation - what about objects which are "essentially part of the building
itself"? - Answer-D'Enycourt v Gregory (1866) LR 3 Eq 382: Lord Romilly MR noted
that the issue is not whether the thing could be easily removed but whether it is
essentially a part of the building itself from which it is proposed to remove.
D'Enycourt v Gregory - Reasoning of court - Answer-The statues, marbles, tapestry,
statues and framed pictures and glasses all fell within the definition of fixtures and so
could not pass to C by operation of the shifting clause. In arriving at this conclusion
the court confirmed that an item may still constitute a fixture even when not
physically attached to the property, or where that attachment could be easily
ABOVE AND BELOW LAND AND
CHATTELS EXAM QUESTIONS WITH
CORRECT ANSWERS
Statute for ownership and upper strata? - Answer-Civil aviation act 1982 - s76 -
should not fly below 200 metres.
Lower stratum (case 1) - Answer-Kelsen v Imperial Tobacco [1957] 2 QB 334:
advertising sign which projected into the airspace above the claimant's shop - only
need to remove the portion that is overhanging.
Lower stratum (case 2) - Answer-Laiqat v Majid [2005] EWHC 1305: Extractor fan
which projected by 750 millimetres
What about a crane overhanging land? - Answer-Anchor Brewhouse developments v
Berkley house (1987) 2 EGLR 173
Crane on D's land swung over the claimant's land. D argued that due to Bernstein
the judge had to balance the rights of C and D.
Scott J - "if an adjoining owner places a structure on his land that overhangs the
neigbours land, he thereby takes into his possession air space to which his neighbor
is entitled. That in my judgement is a trespass"
It is possible to reconcile these - Bernstein was concerned with flying over the land
whereas Anchor concerned invasion of land by an object standing on neighboring
land.
What about objects attached to the land? (general rule) - Answer-See section 62 of
LPA 1925: The general rule is whatever is attached to the land becomes part of it,
often regarded as fixtures. While objects not attached to the land are chattels.
What is the three fold test for objects attached to the land? - Answer-Lord Lloyd in
Elitestone Ltd v Morris and another [1977] 1 WLR 687 noted that rather than the
traditional distinction of fixtures and chattel, he preferred the three-fold distinction as
given by Woodfall, Landlord and Tenant (looseleaf edition): An object brought on to
the land may be classified as (a) a chattel; (b) a fixture or (c) part and parcel of the
land itself
Holland v Hodgson (1872) LR 7 CP 328 - Case factss - Answer-The owner of a mill
purchased some looms for use in his mill. They were attached to the stone floor by
nails driven into wooden beams. They could quite easily be removed. The owner
then mortgaged the mill and failed to keep up the payments and the mill was
repossessed. The question for the court was whether the looms were fixtures
forming part of the land or whether they remained chattels.
, Held:
The looms had become fixtures and thus formed part of the land mortgaged.
Holland v Hodgson - Blackburn quote - Answer-Blackburn J introduced the degree
and object of annexation test:
" an article which is affixed to the land even slightly is to be considered as part of the
land, unless the circumstances are such as to shew that it was intended to all along
continue a chattel, the onus lying on those who contend that it is a chattel."
What is the two step test for chattels and fixtures? - Answer-Step 1: General maxim:
Whatever is annexed to the land becomes part of the land but what is annexation?
Step 2: TEST: Depends on the circumstances as indicating INTENTION but mainly
two circumstances: (i) degree of annexation and
(ii) object/purpose of annexation.
* Note that the evidence for degree and purpose may overlap.
Degree of annexation - three key considerations - Answer-1. Is it resting on its own
weight?
2. Does it require skilful removal?
3. Will the removal cause damage?
Degree of annexation - Holland - Answer-If attached by no more than its own weight,
it is a chattel (citing Wiltshire) but if the intention was not to make it part of the land, it
is to be so treated citing D'Enycourt) + illustration from case: dry stone blocks placed
on top of the other with intention to build wall vs. same stack in a building merchant's
yard
Degree of annexation - skillful removal - Answer-Berkley v Poulett (1988) 241 EG
911 arguing that degree of annexation is less important than purpose of annexation
and no longer conclusive (Lord Scarman) [but he doesn't say irrelevant] - note the
facts here, the court considers whether any skilful removal was needed: pictures
required skilful removal, sundial detached years earlier and statute, though heavy,
not requiring skilful removal.
Degree of annexation - what about objects which are "essentially part of the building
itself"? - Answer-D'Enycourt v Gregory (1866) LR 3 Eq 382: Lord Romilly MR noted
that the issue is not whether the thing could be easily removed but whether it is
essentially a part of the building itself from which it is proposed to remove.
D'Enycourt v Gregory - Reasoning of court - Answer-The statues, marbles, tapestry,
statues and framed pictures and glasses all fell within the definition of fixtures and so
could not pass to C by operation of the shifting clause. In arriving at this conclusion
the court confirmed that an item may still constitute a fixture even when not
physically attached to the property, or where that attachment could be easily
