Introduction
The definition of land is very complex to understand, however it is crucial that buyers and sellers have a clear understanding of what a fixture and a fitting is. It is also essential to establish whether the land includes all items that are in or on it, or whether the property is a personal property that can be taken away. There are two types of property; chattels and fixtures. A chattel is usually moveable although they can also become a fixture if they were fixed into the property which would cause complications. Secondly a fixture is an asset which is fixed into the property or installed which therefore become part of the land. The definition of land also includes subsoil and airspace, this means the person who owns the land, owns everything up to the heavens from the depths of the earth.
The definition of Land is a complex one which may include property that is not necessarily associated with the land itself. With reference to the relevant case law on fixtures and fittings, discuss the above statement.
Firstly, I am going to be discussing the differentiation between a chattel and a fixture. Both fixtures and fittings that accede to the land will become part of the land with the result that they are owned by proprietor and also the buyer of the land. One of the general rules as to what a fixture is expressed through a Latin phrase which states that,
“His is whatever is attached to the soil becomes part of the soil”.
However a chattel on the land is known as moveable property that is not part of the land, which means that in absence of any express agreement in the contract of sale, the chattels are allowed to be removed from the land. Section 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925 confirms this in English law.
Usually when someone is selling the freehold estate, the contract will automatically include everything which counts as part of the land. For example if a seller wanted to remove a fixture or retain a fixture this should be specifically included within the contract, which allows the seller to have a clear understanding. In order for an individual to come to a determination of whether the property is a fixture or a chattel, the courts developed the degree of annexation test. Let’s take the Hollands V. Hodgson case as an example, in this case the degree of annexation test was questioned because the courts had to determine whether the machinery was fixtures or chattels. If the object is annexed to the land then therefore it is a fixture. Blackburn Lj made a very valid point that although an item is too heavy to rest on its own weight, if it isn’t securely fixed to the land is would still remain as a chattel as it is removable.
This case was very significant and was applied to the case of Berkley V. Poulett. This case was about a marble statue and also pictures which were taken from the property when it was sold. It was stated that the pictures were not fixtures as there wasn’t an intention to make them part of the land and that they were put up for the pleasure of people who lived in the property. The marble statue was deemed to be a fixture also, the reason being is because it was resting on its own weight and that there was no evidence that the marble statue would form as part of the land in that property. The degree of annexation is very important when determining whether an object is a fixture or a chattel. This test simply looks at how securely an item is attached to the property or the land. In conclusion to the degree of the annexation test, if an object is fixed securely to the land such as a bath, then it is a fixture, however if the object is resting on its own weight and is not securely attached to the land then this is considered a chattel.
The level of annexation test requires that the object is to be secured or connected on the land in some way in order for it to be deemed as a fixture, for example patio lights were attached to the walls of the property which were held to be fixtures, as held in Hamp V. Bygrave 1983. Because the item is not securely fixed but stands on its own weight, there is a presumption that it is not a fixture but a chattel as it can be removed from the property.
In the annexation test the courts try to discover “the purpose of the object and not the purpose of the person who placed it there” which Lloyd Clyde in Elitestone Ltd V. Morris 1997 stated. This test does not focus on the reason as to why the person placed it there, however it is concerned with the purpose of the object in which it is to enhance the enjoyment of the land to make a permanent improvement to the land in order for it to be deemed a fixture. Let’s take a toilet for an example, a toilet has a vital importance in a bathroom and without it there would be a gap in the bathroom which would not look inviting and it would mean one less essential utility of the bathroom.
Subsoil and Airspace is an important part of the land, a person who owns the land also owns a certain amount of the airspace and the subsoil, this means whoever goes within their space is trespassing. In the case of Bocardo V. Star Energy UK 2010, the company had held a license in order for them to extract oil from its land, in order for them to do so they had to dig under Bocardo’s land, although no damages were caused, the supreme courts held that Bocardo owns everything below the surface and was awarded £1000. Another example of this is the Lord Bernstein V. Skyviews and General Ltd 1978, the defendant took an aerial photo of Bernsteins country house and offered to sell the photograph to him, Bernstein rejected his offer and instead claimed damages for invasion of privacy for entering the airspace, this is just a clear example of how hard it can be to determine what part off the airspace the home owners owe.
When discussing land we also talk about a freehold estate and also a leasehold estate. In section 1 of the Law of Property Act 1925, it also states that only two estates that are capable of being created at law as “freehold” or “leasehold” estates.
A free hold estate is the outright ownership of the property and the land on which is stands. A leasehold is a method of owning property (usually land) for a fixed term but not the land on which it stands. When the lease expires, the ownership of the property goes back to the freeholder. Within this time the leaseholder would have gained an equitable interest which is defined in section 1(3) of the law of property act 1925, within the period of him/her occupation as the leaseholder. When we define interest we mean that interest is a right over land that is kept or owned by another individual.
Conclusion:
When trying to define Land in law it is very complex, as many things come with the land and the property such as; subsoil, airspace, mortgage, fixtures, chattels etc. so therefore it is important that as a buyer and a seller that they have a clear understanding of what each of these are. I do agree with the statement that land is complex, the reason being is because of the case laws that I have used in my assignment, whilst I was examining the cases, I was also able to identify how easy it is to easily mistake a chattel for a fixture, and also how easy it is to trespass on someone’s land or airspace without intention.
2016-11-16-1479336791