#17079 - Chattel Becoming Part Of Land - Property Law

Chattel Becoming Part of Land

• Elitestone Ltd v Morris [1997] UKHL 15

• Facts

• Elitestone had leased out plots to tenants. But wanted to take the land back and redevelop.

• Tenants were able to put dwellings on their plots, but only if they rested by their own weight on concrete piles (tenancy said dwellings could not be attached)

• If these dwellings became part of the land they would become subject to the lease, and the tenants would be protected from eviction.

• If not, the tenants would have only a bare lease of the land and have to leave

• Issue - had dwelling become part of land?

• Judgment

• All parts of dwellings had been brought onto land as chattels, so question was, did they become part of land once assembled?

• Holland v Hodgson test - need to consider two aspects

1. Degree of annexation - precedent suggested that house attached solely by own weight could be part of land

2. Object/purpose of annexation -

- A house than cannot be removed must be part of land

- Blocks on top of each other with no mortar for purpose of forming wall would be part of land, but if stacked in the same way for the sake of convenience, would only be chattel

- Analogy to present facts - intention does matter, due to Morris’s intention the dwelling was part of the land (degree of annexation irrelevant)

- Only concerned with objective intention (not subjectivity)

- Not even concerned with contract (only with objective definition)

• Therefore, dwellings were part of the land

• Melluish v BMI (no 3) [1996] AC 454

• Facts

• BMI stated that certain items on land were chattels so it could claim tax for them

• Status as chattels affirmed in lease contract

• Issue - were items part of land?

• BMI argument - they were only chattel as there was a common intention between it and own that they weren’t part of land

• Judgment

• Items were attached so that by all outward appearances they looked like part of the land

• Subjective intention of the parties is only important so far as such intention can be presumed from the degree and object of the annexation

• Rule works this way to protect third parties (in this case protecting the UK people who were losing their tax money to BMI)

• Therefore, items were part of the land

• London Borough of Tower Hamlets v London Borough of Bromley [2015] EWHC 1954

• Facts

• Debate over whether sculpture was part of land

• Judgment

• Sculpture was entire object in itself

• Only attached by own weight

• Could be removed without hindering its beauty

• Would have just as much value in any location

• It existed for benefit of the people, not the land

• Therefore, only a chattel

• Lockwood Buildings Limited v Trust Bank Canterbury [1995] 1 NZLR 22 (CA)

• Facts

• Lockwood had given a transportable house to builder to advertise

• Builder set up house on land which he had mortgaged

• When builder got into financial trouble, Lockwood removed house

• Bank attempted to sue for trespass as they said house had become part of the land

• Judgment

• Holland v Hodgson Rule - if thing is a little attached, then starting point is to consider it part of land and onus is on person to prove it is a chattel, if thing is not attached, then starting point is to consider it a chattel and onus is on person to prove it is part of the land

• Rule is glossed by test of objective intention

• Starting point

• House was affixed more than slightly electricity and plumbing, onus on Lockwood to prove it was chattel

• Intention

• The builder and the bank appeared to see the show home as subject to the mortgage

• The Bank had consented to the removal and replacement of an earlier model show home which had been offered and valued as part of the mortgage security.

• But the affixation was intended in the ordinary course of events to be temporary, for a minimum of 12 months, while the builder (mortgagor) and Lockwood in their common interest were promoting the sale of this particular model of house.

• But it was possible that there would, at some stage in the future, be a sale of the building site with the show home on it.

• A flag and advertising sign outside the home would have left any members of the public who happened to think about the point uncertain about whether the show home was a fixture.

• Lockwood could not prove on balance of probabilities that house was a chattel

• Therefore, house was part of land

• Potton Developments Ltd v Thompson (unreported, England and Wales High Court)

• Facts

• Potton made box houses to be used on land then removed

• Houses came fully constructed

• Wanted to sue for damages to houses

• Thompson claimed they had become part of the land

• Judgment

• Houses were attached a little - so onus on Potton to prove they were chattels

• Houses were complete in themselves

• Intended for removal

• Only intended to be attached for a little while

• Therefore, they are chattels

• Queenstown Central Ltd v March Construction Ltd [2016] NZHC 1884

• Facts

• March had placed a mound of earth in a hole on Queenstown’s land because March though it would be useful later

• Earth rose 2 m higher than surrounding land

• Grass had been placed over the earth

• Resource consent stated...