• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

In order for a court to decide how to distinguish a fixture from a chattel the courts generally consider two tests in deciding the issue: the degree of annexation of the object to the land; and the purpose of the annexation

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

(a) In order for a court to decide how to distinguish a fixture from a chattel the courts generally consider two tests in deciding the issue: the degree of annexation of the object to the land; and the purpose of the annexation When considering the degree of annexation the general rule is that 'unless an item is physically attached to the land, it will not be considered as a fixture'.1 However this is some cases is not always true and so it becomes necessary to add a third category to 'fixtures and fittings', that is to say, 'items which are brought onto the land and become part of it, without properly being regarded as fixtures at all'.2 A recent case in which this issue arose was Elitestone v. Morris.3 The main question in the case was whether or not the bungalow on the land was a building or a chattel. The court held that the bungalow was part of the land as the building was unlike a mobile home because it could only be removed from the site by being destroyed, and so it was inappropriate to consider whether or not the bungalow was a fixture as to regard something as a fixture it must first be attached to a building. Traditionally when looking at purpose of annexation the courts will look at whether an object was affixed with the intention of making it a permanent improvement to the land or was it attached in order to use of display the chattel. ...read more.

Middle

But works of art which were placed in a building primarily to be enjoyed as objects in their own right, rather than forming part of the land or the building are not likely to be properly considered as fixtures and so it is not that the law lack coherence and certainty but that each case should be decided on its own individual facts and so the law should remain as it stands. 1 Thompson, M.P., Modern Land Law Second Edition, Oxford 2003, p. 14 2 Thompson, M.P., Modern Land Law Second Edition, Oxford 2003, p. 7 3 [1997] 1 W.L.R. 687; H Conway [1998] Conv. 418. 4 [1902] A.C. 157. 5 [1977] 241 E.G. 911. 6 (1866) L.R. 3 Eq. 382. 7 [1872] L.R. 7 C.P. (b) If a chattel is found on someone's land and the true owner cannot be located the general rule is that the finder of an item acquires a good title against all but the true owner, as the true owner will always have a superior title to the object in question than the finder or the landowner. This is shown in the case of Moffat v. Kazana.1 In this case the plaintiff hid bank notes in a biscuit tin in his house. Later when he sold the house, one of the workmen discovered the money and so he contended for the money to be returned. ...read more.

Conclusion

Fletcher.8 In which the defendant, when using a metal detector, found a brooch, but as the council had already stipulated that no digging was allowed in the park, his actions were seen as that of trespassing and so severely weakening his right to the object in question. The finding rule also excludes items which are found but where the land owner has expressed an intention to exercise control over any objects found on their land. An example of this issue is shown by Donaldson LJ in Parker v British Airways Board.9 He said the plaintiffs "rights could only be displaced by the defendants if they could show as occupiers an obvious intention to exercise such control over the lounge and things in it". In conclusion the law on finding objects on or beneath the surface of somebody else's land seems satisfactory as the general rule applied in the common law give a clear outline as to has rights over objects found. The exclusions to these rules are also satisfactory in that they are reasonable and clear for anyone to understand. The only disputes over the law are where different parties will use different areas of this law to support their claim however the rule of common law always prevails in giving the correct answer. 1 [1969] 2 Q.B. 152. 2 (1866) 33 Ch.D. 562. 3 [1862] 2 Q.B. 44. 4 Treasure Act 1996 5 Petroleum (Production) Act 1934 s.1; Coal Industry Act 1994, s.9. 6 (1722) 5 Stra 505 7 [1982] 1 All E.R 8 [1996] Q.B. 334. 9 [1982] 1 All E. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE Law essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Automatism is generally considered to be a state in which a person has no ...

    5 star(s)

    In Bratty, Lord Denning made it clear that an act is not involuntary simply because the offender simply could not resist the impulse or did not intend the consequences. The courts have employed very different approaches to the defence of automatism, which can be seen in the decisions in the conflicting cases of Charlson (1955)

  2. Marked by a teacher

    In order to decide whether or not trial by jury should or should not ...

    4 star(s)

    Measures have been put into place in order to combat this problem and amongst them are the creation of a new criminal offence under the criminal justice and public order act 1994. Under s51 it is an offence to intimidate or threaten to harm, either physically or financially certain people involved in a trial, including jurors.

  1. Criminal Law (Offences against the person) - revision notes

    He didn't know it was wrong in law * If ANY of the 4 tests fail, they all fail Criticisms of insanity 1. It is very unpopular as a defence - people don't like it. Criminal procedure (insanity and unfitness to plead)

  2. Contact orders

    The situation must now change with the introduction of the Human Rights Act, in particular Art 6, which entitles all persons to a 'right to a private life' for parents and children. In Re: D (above) a child's bad reaction to the reintroduction of contact was enough to rebut the

  1. The Law Relating to Negotiable Instruments

    Although it passes by delivery, it is not similar to the bearer bill. The shah's name must always be indorsed on the Hundi at the time of the presentment. It can any time be restricted by being specially indorsed and when so restricted, the Hundi ceases to be a Hundi.

  2. To What Extent Have the Main Aims of the Land Registration Acts Been Met?

    Consequently, the Land Register seeks to provide a complete picture of land ownership in England and Wales and do away with the need to repeatedly examine title deeds on successive sales. The two systems are mutually exclusive; land either falls into one system or the other, but never at the same time.

  1. Law and order in the American west.

    it indicates that there was lawlessness and no government help with law and order in the western towns. Examples of this Anarchy are the murders in the streets, the allowance of guns, and the general disruption of mining towns. The reason for the lawlessness in these early mining towns is

  2. Tort Project 2003

    The tort of battery protects the person against physical contact to which he or she does not expressly or impliedly consent. In order to constitute a battery the contact must have directly resulted from the defendants act7. This is because battery is a species of trespass which stresses the need

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work