Mew v Tristmire Ltd
Houseboats resting on wooden platforms in a harbour remained chattels, because they could be removed without being destroyed.
Facts
The claimants occupied two houseboats in a tidal harbour. The houseboats had been converted from old wartime vessels and rested on wooden platforms supported by piles driven into the harbour bed. They no longer floated with the tide, and were connected to services. The owner of the land sought possession, and the occupiers argued that the houseboats were part of the land, so that they had assured tenancies under the Housing Act 1988.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that the houseboats were chattels. Patten LJ said that, applying Elitestone v Morris, the question was whether the houseboats could be removed without being destroyed. The houseboats were not attached to the platforms and could be lifted off them and removed in one piece, so they had not become part of the land. The occupiers did not have assured tenancies.
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
- Hamp v Bygrave (1983) 266 EG 720
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.
