Land Law Notes Essay

Land includes terrain of any tenure, and mines and minerals, regardless of whether held in addition to the surface, complexes or elements of buildings (whether the division is horizontal, vertical or perhaps made in any other way) and also other corporeal hereditaments; also a way, an advowson, and a rent and also other incorporeal hereditaments, and a great easement, correct, privilege, or benefit in, over, or derived from the land Legislation of House Act 1925 s. sixty two A conveyance of property shall be considered to include and shall due to this Take action operate to share, with the terrain, all buildings, erections, fittings, commons, hedges, ditches, fencing, ways, marine environments, water-courses, liberties privileges, easements, rights, and advantages in any way, appertaining or perhaps reputed to appertain for the land, or any part thereof, or, at the time of conveyance, demised, occupied, or enjoyed with, or reputed or called part or perhaps parcel of or appurtenant to the land or any component thereof.

Remember: This is just a sample from a fellow student. Your time is important. Let us write you an essay from scratch

He who owns the land is the owner of everything up to the sky and down to the depths’ Impractical in modern times pipes underground, aircraft above etc . Fossiles harz v Skyviews & General Ltd 78 QB: Creates that a landowner doesn’t include unqualified rights over the airspace of his land. Holland v Hodgson 1872 LR 7CP 328: Looms were fixtures as they were attached to the floor by simply nails, not only their own excess weight. If an document is annexed to the land by anything more than its weight, it’s a fitting, therefore portion of the land. Elitestone v Morris 1997: Pavillon couldn’t end up being removed with out its break down.

An objective check to determine perhaps the object was intended for use or enjoyment of the land, or for the more convenient utilization of the object itself. Chelsea Luxury yacht & Motorboat Co v Pope 2150 1WLR 1941: Boat on the river was obviously a chattel not a fixture b) The purpose of the annexation: for better excitement from the property or for the best enjoyment of the chattel? Leigh v Taylor 1902 AIR CONDITIONER 157: These types of tapestries had been works of art, yet could be removed without creating structural destruction. Therefore these people were chattels certainly not fixtures. Re Whaley 1908 1Ch 615: These tapestries were hung as to produce the effect associated with an Elizabethan residing house, therefore they were fittings.

Taylor v Hamer 2002 EWCA Civ 1130: The Court made the decision that the flagstones were features, and suggested that a owner is not allowed to remove accessories without telling the buyer when there is a possibility the fact that buyer wants the fittings to be included in the sale. Mortgage lender: Botham v TSB 1996 EGCS 149: The bank placed on the Substantial Court to determine if certain everyday content articles in the borrower’s flat were fixtures’ and thus were be subject to the bank’s mortgage, so that it could sell off them since mortgagee.

Taxation: Melluish v BMI mil novecentos e noventa e seis AC 454 Landlord and tenant: A tenant has the right to take out tenants fixtures and fittings’ at the end from the tenancy: Young v Dalgety 1987 you EGLR 116: A better definition of a tenant’s fixture is any item which is properly officially identifiable as a fixture and which was set up and remains removable by the tenant, is actually a tenant’s light fixture. Spyer versus Phillipson 1929 2 Ch 183: So long as the chattel could be removed without carrying out irreparable injury to the demised premises, nor the method of attachment neither the degree of annexation, nor the quantum of injury that would be carried out either to the chattel by itself or to the demised premises by the removing, had any kind of bearing on the right with the tenant to get rid of it.

Wessex Reserve Makes and Junior military personnel Association sixth is v White 2005 EWHC 983: landlord’s purpose here to demolish’ the premises simply led to the aspirations of regaining possession being flattened’ when the court held that (objectively) the landlord’s (subjective) intention could hardly be executed and that, in any event, the landlord would not require possession of the areas to carry out the proposed works. Ownership of things found on the land. Parker v English Airways Board 1982 QB 1004: court decided that the finder of a gold band in a public area of United kingdom Airways was entitled to possess it resistant to the whole globe save the actual owner.

An occupier of the building features rights better than those of a finder above chattels upon or in, but not attached to, that building if, prior to the chattel is found, he has manifested a great intention to exercise control over the building and the things which may be on or perhaps in that. Bridges v Hawkesworth 1851: The locater of a dropped article can be entitled to it as against all but the real owner. Waverley BC v Fletcher 1996 QB 334: owner or lawful owner of property owned all that was in or attached to this.

Local expert which owned or operated a open public open space had a proper SUPERIOR to Locater to items found in the land of that available space and was allowed to possess all of them against basically the rightful owner. s i9000. 1(1) Describes what treasure is s. 4(1) When treasure is located, it vests, subject to prior interest and rightsin the Crown t. 8(1) A person who finds an object which he believes or has sensible grounds to get believing can be treasure need to notify the coroner for the area in which the thing was discovered (within 16 days) t. 8(3) Anybody who does not comply with subsection (1) is guilty of a great offence h. 10 Repayment of rewards

Related essay