Property Law Determination - Assignment Example

A) In order to determine whether the shed, lino, wallpaper and bathroom fittings are legally ified as fixtures can it must be determined whetherthe objects are chattels or a fixtures as fixtures are considered to be part of the land. Additionally, section 205(1) (ix) of the Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA) defines “land” as “any tenure and mines and minerals, whether or not held apart form the surface buildings of parts of buildings (whether the division is horizontal, vertical or made in some other way) and other corporeal hereditaments, also a manor, an advoswson, and an easement, right, privilege, or benefit in, or over, or, derived from land”. The classic definition of a fixture is anything which is physically (but not necessarily legally) removable and makes a permanent improvement to the land1. Conversely, a chattel is an item brought onto the land, which doesn’t become part of the land2. The general rule as to what constitutes a fixture is expressed in the Latin phrase “quicquid plantatur solo, solo credit”, which means that whatever is attached to the soil becomes part of the soil3. In distinguishing between a fixture and a chattel the Courts in Holland v Hodgson4 established a two part test: 1) The degree of annexation; and 2) The purpose of annexation. The degree of annexation test requires the object to be fastened to or connected with the land in some way for there to be a presumption that it is a fixture. If the object rests on its own weight and is not fixed then there is a presumption that it is a chattel and not a fixture. For example in the case of Berkley v Poulett5 it was held that a statute resting on its own weight was not a fixture as it was placed there for the purpose of it being enjoyed in itself. In considering the purpose of annexation part of the test, the Courts attempt to discover the “purpose the object is serving”6. This test is objective and not subjective and it is not concerned with the intention of the person who put the object there. It requires that the purpose of the objects is to enhance the use and enjoyment of the land to make a permanent improvement to the land for it to be a fixture. The case law in relation to the distinction between chattels and fixtures places importance on the purpose of annexation also. In the case of Berkley v Poulett7, Scarman LJ asserted that “it remains significant to discover the extent of physical disturbance of the building or the land involved in the removal of the object. If an object cannot be removed without serious damage to, or destruction of, some part of the realty, the case for its having become a fixture is a strong one”. Scarman LJ further made a distinction and asserted that the primary test was whether the degree of annexation of the item to the building and he cited Megarry and Wade on Real Property at page 732: “An article is prima facie a fixture if it has some substantial connection with the land or a building on it”, and “A chattel attached to the land or a building on it, in some substantial manner, e.g. by nails or screws, were prima facie a fixture even if it would not be difficult to remove it. Examples in this category are a fireplace8”. In this case, heavy reliance was also placed on the purpose of the annexation and the greater the degree of beauty and ornamental value, the greater the presumption that the object would be a fixture. The degree of annexation test requires that the object be fastened to or connected with the land in some way for there to be a presumption that it is a fixture9. For example, in the case of Hamp v Bygrave10 it was held that patio lights that were attached to the wall of the house were fixtures. Moreover, if an object is not fixed, but merely rests on its own weight, there will be a presumption that it is a chattel11. However, the presumption can be rebutted on the basis of the purpose of the annexation test. In the case of Elitestone Limited v Morris12 Lord Clyde asserted that this test involved a consideration of “the purpose which the object is serving and not the purpose of the person who put it there13”. As such, the test is objective and is concerned with the intention of the person who put the object on the land. It further requires the overriding purpose of the object being the enhancement and enjoyment of the land to make a permanent improvement to the land, in order for it to be a fixture14. Accordingly, if we apply this to the current scenario, the shed and the bathroom fittings will prima facie satisfy the fixture test on both degree and purpose of annexation. Whilst both could be removed, it is likely that there would be a significant amount of disturbance in removing the shed and the bathroom fixtures. Furthermore, the bathroom fixtures are likely to satisfy the criteria of being intended to further the enjoyment of the property and enhanced the “land”. Accordingly, there appears on the basis of the facts to be a presumption that the shed and bathroom fittings are fixtures and therefore part of the land and therefore Jayne will be able to request their return at Tom’s cost. With regard to the wallpaper, whilst the degree of annexation test may negate the presumption of being a fixture, the purpose may well render the wallpaper a fixture, in which case Jayne will be entitled to a return of this at Tom’s cost. With regard to the ring, on this basis that the ring falls within the definition of a chattel, it will not form part of the property and Tom will be able to retain the ring. With regard to whether Jayne can object to the over-flying kites and obtain an injunction, there will be no right of way or easement in respect of the airspace over Jayne’s land. In general terms, a consistent theme in case law has demonstrated that rights considered “too indefinite” will fall outside the fourth requirement and negate the right to an easement.15 A prime example of this is the established adage that there is “no property right to a view16,”which is further supported by the decision in Aldred’s case17. Accordingly, Jayne will have to bring a claim under the law of nuisance or trespass. With regard to trespass, it is established that the right to sue in trespass to land requires some interest in land18and therefore Jayne will clearly have locus standi to bring a claim in trespass. Nevertheless, the most appropriate course of action is likely to be in the law of nuisance. The law distinguishes between private and public nuisance. Furthermore, the decision in the case of Hunter v Canary Wharf19 renders private nuisance claims dependant upon demonstration of a proprietary interest in the land, which Jayne satisfies. Additionally, in the decision in Reads v Lyons20 it was determined that one cannot claim for personal injuries in private nuisance but only for the discomfort caused to the use of the land itself21. In the case of Attorney General v PYA Quarries Limited22quarries it was asserted that public nuisance is “an unlawful act or omission which materially affects the reasonable comforts and convenience of life of a class of her majesty’s subjects23”. Moreover, in the case of Halsey v Esso Petroleum Co Limited24 the defendants operated an oil distributing depot and the claimant claimed that acid smuts were damaging their washing. It was further established that the smuts caused damage to the car. It was held that due to the “special damage” caused, the claimant could make a claim under public nuisance, with no requirement to establish an interest in land. In the current scenario, Jayne owns the property, therefore if the elements of public nuisance are satisfied she can bring a claim for nuisance. Moreover, Private nuisance is an unlawful interference with a persons use or enjoyment of land or some right over or in connection with it25. As Jayne has a proprietary interest in the land, she will also have rights in private nuisance. Alternatively, in light of the fact that kites have been landing in Jayne’s garden, if they cause damage this could give rise to the students being strictly liable under the principle in Rylands v Fletcher26. B) In undertaking this piece of work I utilised a combination of statute, articles, books and online sources. A primary source for me was the Law of Property Act 1925 and in particular Megarry and Wade’s “The Law of Real Property”. Not only is this a legal sourcebook, I find the approach to property law multi-layered and the book approaches legal issues in a practical context with numerous examples. This helped me consider the concept of wide range of issues in the problem question laterally and consider the wider issues covered under the law of property. Secondly, I found the Law of Property Act 1925 and the case law reports vital in highlighting how the courts have approached the difficult distinction between chattels and fixtures under property law. It further enabled me to plan and structure my assignment in considering the focus points of discussion and consider the likely parameter’s of Jayne’s rights under the factual scenario provided. . The case law reports were further important to my research in considering the practical perspective impacting the problem question under existing property law principles. From reading the case reports, I got to consider the judicial rationale with regard to the definition of chattels and fixtures. In particular, the evolution of the annexation tests and the purpose of annexation test, highlighted the judiciary adopting a pragmatic approach to the distinction between chattels and fixtures, which in turned informed my approach to the question. Finally, the case reports were extremely useful in adding another dynamic to the assignment content by considering judicial perspective in relation to their perception of practical reality and this aided me in preparing for the assignment by considering the law from a practical perspective. BIBLIOGRAPHY M. Dixon “Principles of Land Law”, 4th Edition. Cavendish Publishing Megarry and Wade., (2007) The Law of Real property. 7th Edition Sweet & Maxwell. A J Oakley (2001) Megarry’s Manual of the Law of Real Property 8th. Sweet & Maxwell R J Smith (2003) Property Law 4th Edition, Longman R J Smith (2003) Property Law Cases & Materials 2nd Edition, Longman All legislation at www.opsi.gov.uk and the UK Statute Law Database at www.statutelaw.gov.uk Read More