Hamp v Bygrave
Garden ornaments such as stone urns, statues and a lead trough passed with the land because they were part of the garden's design, and the seller was in any event estopped from removing them.
Facts
The vendors of a house sold it to the purchasers. The garden contained a number of ornaments, including stone and lead statues, urns, troughs and a stone seat, some of which rested by their own weight on the ground. The vendors' estate agent's particulars included the ornaments, and the vendors had said that they would be included in the sale. Before completion, the vendors removed the ornaments, claiming that they were chattels.
Legal principle
The court held that the ornaments were fixtures and passed with the land. Although they were not physically attached in a substantial way, they formed part of the overall design of the garden and were placed there to improve the land as a garden. The court also held that the vendors were estopped from claiming that the ornaments were chattels, because they had represented to the purchasers that they were included in the sale, and the purchasers had relied on that representation.
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
- Elitestone Ltd v Morris [1997] 1 WLR 687
- 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.
