Is a bungalow part of the land?

Something added to land may be either a chattel, a fixture or part and parcel of the land. Things falling into either of the two latter categories are part of the land. A structure that can only be enjoyed in situ (in its current location) and that can only be moved by a process of demolition is highly likely to be part of the land.

Elitestone Ltd v Morris ((1998) 30 HLR 266) concerned wooden bungalows that rested under their own weight (possibly with no other attachment to the ground) on cement pillars sunk into the ground. The question was whether the bungalows were chattels or were part of the land. If the latter, the occupants could be classified as protected tenants for the purposes of the Rent Act 1977. The House of Lords held that the bungalows were not chattels but were part of the land. A structure, such as these bungalows, that would have to be demolished to be removed was highly likely to be part and parcel of the land. Lord Lloyd of Berwick thought that there was a threefold distinction to be drawn between items that were (a) chattels, (b) fixtures and (c) part and parcel of the land. Items in categories (b) and (c) were part and parcel of the land.

Advertisements

2 Responses to “Is a bungalow part of the land?”

  1. Thaim Abdulla Rasheed Says:

    There’s a typo here. You wrote that “items in categories (a) and (b) were part and parcel of the land” and I think you meant that (b) and (c) were part of the land.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: