You are on page 1of 3

N-N.

Abdul-Karem
Title

S1 - Basics
Vertical Extent of Land
Rights of owner in air space are restricted to such height as is
Bernstein v Skyviews &
1 necessary for ordinary use and enjoyment of land and
General
structures
Anchor Brewhouse v Berkley
overswinging crane interferes with enjoyment of airspace
House
tobacco company sign
Kelsen v Imperial Tobacco
property right includes air above it
oil field diagonally drilled into C’s land
2 Bocardo SA v Star Energy
right of owner bellow surface extends indefinitely
Grigsby v Melville Land prima facie includes subjacend cellars
part of cave below L’s property, share 1/3 of profits
Edwards v Lee
property includes ground below
Fixtures
stones placed on their weight to form a wall – part and parcel
(1) Degree of annexaction – prima facie fixture/chattel
Holland v Hodgson - 1872 (2) Object of annexation – negatives prima facie status
3
(Blackburn J)
 Fixture = with a view to permanent improvement
of the freehold
electrical appliances in position by their own weight
Botham v TSB Bank - 1996
test based on degree and purpose of annexation
tapestries nailed to the wall
Leigh v Taylor (1) If it becomes part of the house = fixture
(Lord Halsbury) (2) If it doesn’t, if purpose is objected enjoyed as a
chattel, remains a chattel
heavy machinery unattached to land
Hulme v Brigham (1943)
if it rests on land due to their own weight, it’s a chattel
If an object can’t be removed without seerious damage to or
Berkley v Poulett
destruction of some part of realty = strong case for fixture
bungalow is part and parcel
(1) Part and parcel of land = can only be enjoyed there,
4 Elitestone v Morris removal is its destruction
(2) Three-fold distinction: fixtures, chattels, part and
parcel
houseboat connected to mains, but easily untied
Chelsea Yacht and Boat Club (1) Sufficient attachment to land – if it moves it’s not
v Pope (2) Purpose of annexure = don’t need to attach it to
make the boat a home
old boat house on land
5 Mew v Tristmire not part and parcel if something can be removed without
being dismantled or destroyed = moveable

etc.N-N. distinguished from mere ornaments afterwards added Estates Lord Wilberforce’s 4-way definition of proprietary right: (1) Definable National Provincial Bank v (2) Identifiable Ainsworth (3) Stable (4) Capable of assumption by 3rd parties licence for weekly accommodation. Abdul-Karem Title chalet in naturist resort is part of land (1) Intended to be permanent. Bruton v London & Quadrant despite the label used 11 Housing (2) ‘lease’ is the relationship. marble lions. security of beneficiary’s 14 Kingsnorth Finance v Tizard interest will depend on doctrine of notice histori case that wife’s rights irrelevant to the doctrine of 15 Caunce v Caunce notice wife has equitable interest due to contribution to purchase Williams and Glyn’s Bank v 16 price. rules of equity prevail Trust If the title to land is unregistered. it’s a chattel. signed understanding that no lease it is a lease if: 10 Street v Mountford (1) Exclusive possession for a term at a rent (2) Landlord doesn’t provide attendance or services (3) Intention is negated by certain classes of relationships (1) can get lease if exclusive occupation is what you get. even after a long time passed garden fittings – hose and everything (fixtures) 7 Hamp v Bygrave [thing on its own weight] second test of purpose of annexation is dominant tapestries. even if owned by tenant draped. not mobile or moveable Spielplatz v Pearson (2015) (2) Landlord has interest in the chalet. [thing on its own weight] doesn’t depend on whether cement is 8 D’Eyncourt v Gregory used. but whether part of the architectural design of the hall. seated woman – henry moore scultpure Tower Hamlets LBC v 6 [thing on its own weight]if it can be removed without Bromley LBC (2015) damage. only 12 European Grain and Shipping administration of law and equity 13 Wals v Lonsdale Where law and equity conflict. not conerned with third parties = can enforce covenants against licensor Bank of Boston Connecticut v Judicature Act did not alter rights of parties. frescoes. under trust in common wife is in actual occupation = Boland overriding rights of equitable interests overreached even if in fact no 17 State Bank of India v Sood money is paid under conveyance (all go towards setting off debt) Formalities .

the court will not follow such a Strasbourg decisions 22 Manchester CC v Pinnock 23 Hounslow LBC v Powell 24 Kay v UK Where court is not exercising discretion but implementing mandatory common law rule (i. possession procedure McDonald v McDonald 25 against tenant). 54(2) only applies to creation of short legal leases Human Rights Question is whether A8 rights entitles occupier of home to 19 Pirabakaran v Patel resist order for possession when domestic law doesn’t give him any defence R(Ullah) v Special ‘no national court should without strong reason dilute or 20 Adjudicator weaken effect of Strasbourg case law’ When Strasbourg doesn’t sufficiently appreciate or 21 R v Horncastle accommodate particular aspects of domestic process. but merely ‘sufficient and continuous links’ to the property Exclusing persons from public places.e. such as a group of 30 CIN Properties v Rawlins youths barred from a shopping centre. Abdul-Karem Title Transfer of a legal leasehold of whatever length requires a 18 Crago v Julian deed – s.N-N. such as licences to occupy land don’t 26 JLS v Spain qualify as “posssessions” under Art 1 of First Protocol There is no interference with claimant’s posession if interest in 27 Aston Cantlow v Wallbank land was subject to inherent limitation from the outset 28 Pye v UK Art 8 respect for home requires no contractual right to 29 Gillow v UK occupy. there is no power to consider proportionality (2016) under s. might impair Article 11 right 31 Connors v UK . 6 since Convention would in effect be enforceable directly between private citizens and alter contractual rights Contractual rights.