• 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)

    (Back to the twelfth century?) There have been problems with jury nobbling. That is pressurising one or more members of a jury by the use of threats into attempting to influence the outcome of the trial. This problem has been so serious, that in some cases special measures had to be taken to protect the jury from outside interference.

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

    appears to give extremely wide powers to rectify but these are somewhat curtailed by s82(3). Furthermore, the provisions for compensation in s83 appear to be generous, but there is a hidden limitation whereby it must be shown that the loss is due specifically to the rectification.

  2. Metafiktion er betegnelsen for den type af sknlitteratur, film og drama, som gr opmrksom ...

    Det blotl�gges at denne historie er fiktion, da den umuligt kan v�re sand - en fisk kan jo ikke fort�lle en historie i virkelighede Gennem historien narres vi til at tro, at Mira Jama fort�ller direkte til os og man lever sig derfor mere ind i historien, men Blixen s�tter os allerede af i f�rste linje.

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

    - Suffering form epilepsy and during a fit he caused GBH Found guilty and appealed to the HOL HOL ruled that epilepsy was a disease of the mind Not guilty by reason of insanity R v Burges (1991) - Attacked girlfriend and caused her injury.

  2. Contact orders

    1999 HMSO A case which I feel is bad law and was decided before the Human Rights Act came into force was Re: S (minor) (natural father:access) (1991) 2FLR 333...where a mother stopped a child from having contact with her father who she did not know was her father, as

  1. The Law Relating to Negotiable Instruments

    A material alteration in the pronote debars the person from recovering the amount of the pronote on the basis of original contract. Suresh Chandra v. Satish Chandra, 1983 All. 81 11. Discharge by payment of altered instrument: Where an instrument has been materially altered but does not appear to have

  2. Tort Project 2003

    Where the defendants conduct results in indirect injury the plaintiff may not benefit of any recompense, a separate action on the case may be available to him8 although the scope of such action has not yet been clearly articulated by the Courts.

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