Elitestone Ltd v Morris
A bungalow resting on concrete pillars that could not be removed except by demolition had become part of the land.
Facts
Mr Morris lived in a wooden bungalow, built in about 1945, that rested on concrete pillars on land owned by Elitestone. The bungalow was not attached to the pillars, and rested on them by its own weight. Elitestone, which wanted to redevelop the land, sought possession. Mr Morris claimed that he was protected by the Rent Act 1977, which depended on whether the bungalow was part of the land let to him, or a chattel. The Court of Appeal held that it was a chattel.
Legal principle
The House of Lords allowed Mr Morris's appeal and held that the bungalow was part of the land. Lord Lloyd said that it is better to use a threefold classification: an object brought onto land may be a chattel, a fixture, or part and parcel of the land itself. A house that can only be removed by being demolished cannot have been intended to remain a chattel. The intention of the parties is relevant only so far as it can be derived from the degree and object of annexation, which are judged objectively, and not from their subjective intentions or agreements.
Related cases on land, fixtures and chattels
- Berkley v Poulett (1976) 241 EG 911
- Bernstein of Leigh (Baron) v Skyviews & General Ltd [1978] QB 479
- Bocardo SA v Star Energy UK Onshore Ltd [2010] UKSC 35, [2011] 1 AC 380
- Botham v TSB Bank plc (1997) 73 P & CR D1
- Chelsea Yacht and Boat Co Ltd v Pope [2000] 1 WLR 1941
- D'Eyncourt v Gregory (1866) LR 3 Eq 382
- Hamp v Bygrave (1983) 266 EG 720
- Holland v Hodgson (1872) LR 7 CP 328
Studying land law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
