What is property?
Fixtures and Chattel
Case Facts Ratio Other
S.62 of LPA 1925
Fixtures must be conveyed to purchaser Chattels van validly be removed
(p.66)
2 stage-fixture test
Degree: no annexation at all -> chattel;
- Degree of annexation (how
Holland v Hodgson unless it rests on its own weight
firmly?)
Purpose: improvement to realty itself?
- Purpose of annexation
E wants to develop chalet that rests on
pillars attached to the ground. M - No physical annexation but fixture
Elitestone Ltd v
questions whether chalet is fixture (in because used in situ and could not be
Morris
which case he has tenancy rights) or moved without destruction
chattel.
- Held the statue had always been a
chattel and remained so
Tower Hamlets v Dispute over ownership of “Old Flo” - Rested on its own weight. Did not
Bromley sculpture. improve this piece of land specifically.
Could have been placed anywhere
and have that effect.
- Specific purpose?
- Part of overall design?
Botham v TSB Bank Are everyday objects fixtures of chattels?
- (Re)movability without damage?
- Installer?
Melluish v BMI - Purpose of annexation is an objective
test
1
, Finding and Treasure
Case Facts Ratio Other
- Object of more than 300 years old
- At least 10% precious metal (gold or
Definition of treasure, duty of silver)
Treasure Act 1996
finder - If coins, 1 out of 2 or 1 out of 10
- Objects under old treasure trove if
found before 1996
- at least 200 years old
Treasure (Designation) Act - Secretary of State considers it to be of
Definitions
2002 outstanding historical, archaeological or
cultural importance.
Objects found ON land -> finder has better
P found bracelet in BA lounge. - Held mere occupancy not enough. title
Parker v British Airways Gave to BA but wanted it Must manifest an intention to control
Board returned if not claimed. BA anything that may be found on the Had BAB put up an announcement saying
sold bracelet. P claimed title. land they intended to keep anything found on
their land, they would have better title
C, guarding the defendant’s
house found a brooch. D - Brooch not attached or in the land so
Hannah v Peel
unaware of its existence finder has better title
before hand
- Object not treasure trove (under old
Fletcher found gold brooch law) because lost rather than - Objects found IN land -> occupier has
Waverley BC v Fletcher 15cm below ground in park deposited with intention to be found the better title
when metal detecting - Metal detecting lawful. Digging up - No need of prior knowledge
brooch unlawful
- The true owner of the object has the
Moffat v Kazana superior title and a better claim to it -
than anybody else
2
Fixtures and Chattel
Case Facts Ratio Other
S.62 of LPA 1925
Fixtures must be conveyed to purchaser Chattels van validly be removed
(p.66)
2 stage-fixture test
Degree: no annexation at all -> chattel;
- Degree of annexation (how
Holland v Hodgson unless it rests on its own weight
firmly?)
Purpose: improvement to realty itself?
- Purpose of annexation
E wants to develop chalet that rests on
pillars attached to the ground. M - No physical annexation but fixture
Elitestone Ltd v
questions whether chalet is fixture (in because used in situ and could not be
Morris
which case he has tenancy rights) or moved without destruction
chattel.
- Held the statue had always been a
chattel and remained so
Tower Hamlets v Dispute over ownership of “Old Flo” - Rested on its own weight. Did not
Bromley sculpture. improve this piece of land specifically.
Could have been placed anywhere
and have that effect.
- Specific purpose?
- Part of overall design?
Botham v TSB Bank Are everyday objects fixtures of chattels?
- (Re)movability without damage?
- Installer?
Melluish v BMI - Purpose of annexation is an objective
test
1
, Finding and Treasure
Case Facts Ratio Other
- Object of more than 300 years old
- At least 10% precious metal (gold or
Definition of treasure, duty of silver)
Treasure Act 1996
finder - If coins, 1 out of 2 or 1 out of 10
- Objects under old treasure trove if
found before 1996
- at least 200 years old
Treasure (Designation) Act - Secretary of State considers it to be of
Definitions
2002 outstanding historical, archaeological or
cultural importance.
Objects found ON land -> finder has better
P found bracelet in BA lounge. - Held mere occupancy not enough. title
Parker v British Airways Gave to BA but wanted it Must manifest an intention to control
Board returned if not claimed. BA anything that may be found on the Had BAB put up an announcement saying
sold bracelet. P claimed title. land they intended to keep anything found on
their land, they would have better title
C, guarding the defendant’s
house found a brooch. D - Brooch not attached or in the land so
Hannah v Peel
unaware of its existence finder has better title
before hand
- Object not treasure trove (under old
Fletcher found gold brooch law) because lost rather than - Objects found IN land -> occupier has
Waverley BC v Fletcher 15cm below ground in park deposited with intention to be found the better title
when metal detecting - Metal detecting lawful. Digging up - No need of prior knowledge
brooch unlawful
- The true owner of the object has the
Moffat v Kazana superior title and a better claim to it -
than anybody else
2
