'Land Law Notes Essay\r'

' terra firma includes bestow of any tenure, and mines and minerals, whether or not held a segmentation from the surface, constructs or detonates of creates (whether the contri bution is horizontal, vertical or made in any other way) and other sensible hereditaments; also a manor, an advowson, and a use up and other incorporeal hereditaments, and an easement, right, privilege, or welfare in, everyplace, or derived from the land Law of holding roleplay 1925 s.62\r\nA conveyance of land shall be deemed to include and shall by fair play of this Act operate to convey, with the land, all buildings, erections, speeds, commons, hedges, ditches, fences, ways, waters, water-courses, liberties privileges, easements, rights, and advantages whatsoever, appertaining or reputed to appertain to the land, or any break down thereof, or, at the time of conveyance, demised, occupied, or enjoyed with, or reputed or known as sectionalisation or parcel of or supplemental to the land or any demote thereof.\r\n‘He who owns the land owns everything up to the cast aside and down to the depths’ Unrealistic in new-fangled times †pipes underground, aircraft above etc. Bernstein v Skyviews & adenylic acid; General Ltd 1978 QB: Establishes that a landowner doesn’t have unqualified rights over the air pose of his land.\r\nFixtures and Fittings\r\nLaw of Property Act 1926 s.62\r\n‘Whatever is fixed to the land becomes part of the land’\r\nHolland v Hodgson 1872 LR 7CP 328: Looms were fixtures as they were connected to the floor by nails, not unspoiled their own weight. If an article is annexed to the land by something more than its own weight, it’s a fixture, therefore part of the land. Elitestone v Morris 1997: bungalow couldn’t be call ford with kayoed its destruction. An clinical test to determine whether the objective was intend for the use or frolic of the land, or for the more convenient use of the object itself .\r\nGeneral principle: whether an object is part of the land is determined by…\r\na) The natural degree of annexation\r\nChelsea Yacht & Boat Co v pontiff 2000 1WLR 1941: Boat on a river was a chattel not a fixture b) The purpose of the annexation: for fall in fun of the land or for the better enjoyment of the chattel? Leigh v Taylor 1902 AC 157: These tapestries were works of art, but could be removed without cause structural damage. Therefore they were chattels not fixtures. Re Whaley 1908 1Ch 615: These tapestries were hung as to create the effect of an Elizabethan dwelling house, therefore they were fixtures.\r\nRelevance?\r\n vendee:\r\nTaylor v Hamer 2002 EWCA Civ 1130: The Court limitd that the flagstones were fixtures, and suggested that a seller is not allowed to remove fixtures without ratting the buyer if there is a conjecture that the buyer expects the fixtures to be included in the sale. Mortgage lender:\r\nBotham v TSB 1996 EGCS 149: The swaning co mpany applied to the High Court to decide if certain everyday articles in the borrower’s flat were ‘fixtures’ and therefore were undefendable to the bank’s mortgage, so it could sell them as mortgagee. Taxation:\r\nMelluish v BMI 1996 AC 454\r\nLandlord and dwell: A tenant has the right to remove ‘tenants fixtures and fittings’ at the end of the tenancy: untested v Dalgety 1987 1 EGLR 116: A better definition of a tenant’s fixture is any item which is justly legally identifiable as a fixture and which was installed and continues to be removable by the tenant, is a tenant’s fixture. Spyer v Phillipson 1929 2 Ch 183: So long as the chattel could be removed without doing irreparable damage to the demised premise, neither the method of fond regard nor the degree of annexation, nor the quantum of damage that would be through with(p) either to the chattel itself or to the demised set forth by the removal, had any bearing on the right of the tenant to remove it.\r\nWessex concur Forces and Cadets Association v White 2005 EWHC 983: landlord’s blueprint here to ‘demolish’ the premises only led to its aspirations of regaining bullheadedness being ‘flattened’ when the court held that (objectively) the landlord’s (subjective) intention could not be apply and that, in any event, the landlord would not fill possession of the premises to carry out the proposed works.\r\nOwnership of things form on the land.\r\nParker v British Airways Board 1982 QB 1004: court distinct that the spotter of a gold wristband in a public field of honor of British Airways was authorize to possess it against the wholly world save the honest owner. An occupier of a building has rights superior to those of a finder over chattels on or in, but not disposed to, that building if, before the chattel is implant, he has manifested an intention to exercise control over the building and the thi ngs which may be on or in it. Bridges v Hawkesworth 1851: The finder of a lost article is entitled to it as against all but the true owner. Waverley BC v Fletcher 1996 QB 334: owner or lawful possessor of land have all that was in or attached to it. Local authority which owned a public open space had a right SUPERIOR to Finder to things found in the ground of that open space and was entitled to possess them against all but the rightful owner.\r\nBuried hold dear\r\nTreasure Act 1996\r\ns.1(1) Defines what treasure is s.4(1) When treasure is found, it vests, subject to prior interest and rights…in the pourboire… s.8(1) A person who finds an object which he believes or has reasonable grounds for believe is treasure must notify the medical examiner for the district in which the object was found (within 14 days) s.8(3) Any person who fails to abide by with subsection (1) is guilty of an offence… s.10 requital of rewards\r\n'