N-N.

Abdul-Karem
Title

S1 - Basics
Vertical Extent of Land
Rights of owner in air space are restricted to such height as is
Bernstein v Skyviews &
1 necessary for ordinary use and enjoyment of land and
General
structures
Anchor Brewhouse v Berkley
overswinging crane interferes with enjoyment of airspace
House
tobacco company sign
Kelsen v Imperial Tobacco
property right includes air above it
oil field diagonally drilled into C’s land
2 Bocardo SA v Star Energy
right of owner bellow surface extends indefinitely
Grigsby v Melville Land prima facie includes subjacend cellars
part of cave below L’s property, share 1/3 of profits
Edwards v Lee
property includes ground below
Fixtures
stones placed on their weight to form a wall – part and parcel
(1) Degree of annexaction – prima facie fixture/chattel
Holland v Hodgson - 1872 (2) Object of annexation – negatives prima facie status
3
(Blackburn J)
 Fixture = with a view to permanent improvement
of the freehold
electrical appliances in position by their own weight
Botham v TSB Bank - 1996
test based on degree and purpose of annexation
tapestries nailed to the wall
Leigh v Taylor (1) If it becomes part of the house = fixture
(Lord Halsbury) (2) If it doesn’t, if purpose is objected enjoyed as a
chattel, remains a chattel
heavy machinery unattached to land
Hulme v Brigham (1943)
if it rests on land due to their own weight, it’s a chattel
If an object can’t be removed without seerious damage to or
Berkley v Poulett
destruction of some part of realty = strong case for fixture
bungalow is part and parcel
(1) Part and parcel of land = can only be enjoyed there,
4 Elitestone v Morris removal is its destruction
(2) Three-fold distinction: fixtures, chattels, part and
parcel
houseboat connected to mains, but easily untied
Chelsea Yacht and Boat Club (1) Sufficient attachment to land – if it moves it’s not
v Pope (2) Purpose of annexure = don’t need to attach it to
make the boat a home
old boat house on land
5 Mew v Tristmire not part and parcel if something can be removed without
being dismantled or destroyed = moveable
N-N. Abdul-Karem
Title
chalet in naturist resort is part of land
(1) Intended to be permanent, not mobile or moveable
Spielplatz v Pearson (2015)
(2) Landlord has interest in the chalet, even if owned by
tenant
draped, seated woman – henry moore scultpure
Tower Hamlets LBC v
6 [thing on its own weight]if it can be removed without
Bromley LBC (2015)
damage, it’s a chattel, even after a long time passed
garden fittings – hose and everything (fixtures)
7 Hamp v Bygrave [thing on its own weight] second test of purpose of
annexation is dominant
tapestries, marble lions, frescoes, etc.
[thing on its own weight] doesn’t depend on whether cement is
8 D’Eyncourt v Gregory
used, but whether part of the architectural design of the hall,
distinguished from mere ornaments afterwards added
Estates
Lord Wilberforce’s 4-way definition of proprietary right:
(1) Definable
National Provincial Bank v
(2) Identifiable
Ainsworth
(3) Stable
(4) Capable of assumption by 3rd parties
licence for weekly accommodation, signed understanding that
no lease
it is a lease if:
10 Street v Mountford
(1) Exclusive possession for a term at a rent
(2) Landlord doesn’t provide attendance or services
(3) Intention is negated by certain classes of relationships
(1) can get lease if exclusive occupation is what you get,
Bruton v London & Quadrant despite the label used
11
Housing (2) ‘lease’ is the relationship, not conerned with third
parties = can enforce covenants against licensor
Bank of Boston Connecticut v Judicature Act did not alter rights of parties, only
12
European Grain and Shipping administration of law and equity
13 Wals v Lonsdale Where law and equity conflict, rules of equity prevail

Trust
If the title to land is unregistered, security of beneficiary’s
14 Kingsnorth Finance v Tizard
interest will depend on doctrine of notice
histori case that wife’s rights irrelevant to the doctrine of
15 Caunce v Caunce
notice
wife has equitable interest due to contribution to purchase
Williams and Glyn’s Bank v
16 price, under trust in common wife is in actual occupation =
Boland
overriding
rights of equitable interests overreached even if in fact no
17 State Bank of India v Sood money is paid under conveyance (all go towards setting off
debt)
Formalities
N-N. Abdul-Karem
Title
Transfer of a legal leasehold of whatever length requires a
18 Crago v Julian
deed – s. 54(2) only applies to creation of short legal leases
Human Rights
Question is whether A8 rights entitles occupier of home to
19 Pirabakaran v Patel resist order for possession when domestic law doesn’t give
him any defence
R(Ullah) v Special ‘no national court should without strong reason dilute or
20
Adjudicator weaken effect of Strasbourg case law’
When Strasbourg doesn’t sufficiently appreciate or
21 R v Horncastle accommodate particular aspects of domestic process, the
court will not follow such a Strasbourg decisions
22 Manchester CC v Pinnock

23 Hounslow LBC v Powell

24 Kay v UK
Where court is not exercising discretion but implementing
mandatory common law rule (i.e. possession procedure
McDonald v McDonald
25 against tenant), there is no power to consider proportionality
(2016)
under s. 6 since Convention would in effect be enforceable
directly between private citizens and alter contractual rights
Contractual rights, such as licences to occupy land don’t
26 JLS v Spain
qualify as “posssessions” under Art 1 of First Protocol
There is no interference with claimant’s posession if interest in
27 Aston Cantlow v Wallbank
land was subject to inherent limitation from the outset
28 Pye v UK
Art 8 respect for home requires no contractual right to
29 Gillow v UK occupy, but merely ‘sufficient and continuous links’ to the
property
Exclusing persons from public places, such as a group of
30 CIN Properties v Rawlins youths barred from a shopping centre, might impair Article
11 right
31 Connors v UK