LAWS205 - Nature of Land Cases
Terms in this set (17)
(Crown) Rural Banking and Finance Corp v Official Assignee
Case writes that Crown is always superior and tenants only hold certain rights.
Ninety Mile Beach Case 1993
Dispute with Iwi about rights, this and the Foreshore and Seabed case created an ongoing debate that it was wrongly decided.
(Airspace) Lord Bernstein of Leigh v Skyviews General Ltd
Airspace: Was stressed about a plane flying over his house and taking photos. The plane was purposely used for aerial mapping and was taking photos of the whole area. He alleged it was trespassing on his airspace and his privacy.
Failed: no invasion of use and enjoyment.
Test of reasonable height was created - absurdities of satellites etc.
(Airspace) Woollerton and Wilson Ltd v Richard Constain Ltd
Airspace: Concerned a crane that overhung a factory just above roof level. Wasn't trespass but an injunction was ordered to remove the crane. The date was postponed until after the work was completed. Cranes are necessary to build structures.
(Airspace) Kelsen v Imperial Tabacco Co. Ltd
Airspace: An advertising horden was attached to a brick wall and there were buildings right next to each other, the advert hung 8 metres over the other property. This was a reasonable intrusion and an injunction was made.
(Airspace) Concrete Properties Ltd. v Churchill Holdings Ltd
Airspace: Another crane case, this time it was 100s of feet in the air and an injunction wasn't ordered because it merely hung over a car park.
(Fixtures) Holland v Hodgson (1872)
Said that articles not otherwise attached by their own weight are not to be considered as part of the land, the onus is on those who assert they are chattels, on contrary, an article even slightly fixed to the land should be regarded a fixture unless intended to be a chattel"
(Fixtures) Lockwood Buildings Ltd v Trust Bank Canterbury Limited
Fixtures: COA examined to what extent intention may be subjective. Maybe subjective when a land owner has a contract claiming item was a chattel. Houses are intended to remain on land.
(Fixtures) Elitestone Ltd v Morris
Fixtures: House was intended for removal but they wanted it to remain as a chattel even though it was connected to water mains. Looms were put in and they could only get them out by creating damage. They were fixtures due to this outcome.
(Fixtures) Leigh v Taylor
Fixtures: Expensive tapestry was attached to a house - to be seen and enjoyed. They were chattels due to there being no intention on permanence.
(Fixtures) Spyer v Phillipson
Fixtures: Wooden panelling was attached to some walls, they were there simply to be enjoyed and had no intention of permanence
(Fixtures) D'Eyncourt v Gregory
Garden statute case. It was simply resting on its own weight but because it was there as a strong part of the architectural design, it was considered a fixture due to intention of permanence.
(Fixtures) Neylon v Dickens
Fixture: House got airlifted onto its foundations and even though it was connected to water and electricity mains, it was regarded a chattel. Intention was a strong argument - can be looked closely at Lockwood regarding the parties in litigation.
Whenupapai Joinery v Trust Bank Central Ltd (1994)
Argument between building supplier and mortgagee - mortgagee can step into the shoes of the landowner in certain situations. Owner ran out of money and had a contract with the Joinery company - reservation of title clause was held. Joinery company entered to repossess but bank brought action and said it was a fixture. Bank succeeded as they had the right to enter into possession. COA.
Marshlands Market Garden County Case
One side of the fence was a garden and the other had horses on it. They then changed it to sheep and they got through the electric fence and ate the cabbages. It was held that it didn't become inadequate in this case for changing its use and so cattle trespass was abolished.
Greenfield v Rodney County Council
This is a case regarding subsidence. An injunction was ordered to stop work that could cause more water damages and future subsidence on Greenfields property.
Vane v Lord Bernard
Waste: A man owned a castle with his son as the remainder. He was impeachable to waste, however after a falling out he began to demolish the property so that the son would get no inheritance. The Court of Chancery ordered an injunction for him to stop. He had to repair it back to it's original state.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE...
California | Drivers Test Study Guide
Law notes property
OTHER SETS BY THIS CREATOR
ECON - Final