Thursday 1 December 2011

could you save him if ur his attorney ,not even harvey spector could

  FANCIFUL POSSIBILITIES

….If we are to protect the community, and then we must not let fanciful possibilities deflect the course of justice…. (Denning, J. Miller v Minister for Pensions)

    His Lordship peered down his thick rimmed glasses at the young blustering lawyer. In his twenty years as a judge of the High Court, he had watched all sorts come and go- just fresh out of law schools and tying to impress by lecturing the court on Law. He admired their belief in the supremacy of the law and the optimism with which they rushed their clients under its protective wings. It was naïve really, as they soon realized. It was not enough to be on the right side of the Law. You needed to be on the right side of the Judge. The slip twixt  the cup and lip in the process could be cured by generosity. The young Lawyers belief graduated into bitter realism and finally to resignation to the ills of the system.
And at that point his lordship Senyonga was always a disappointed man. He would have preferred them to stick to it and try to reform the system as he had done. He was a Christian reverend and believed that the Law was vox populi vox dei. It was a favorable topic of his – infact seven out of ten of his sermons treated this subject, sometimes so painstakingly that it soared into the realms subtle mysticisms. Being well intentioned the system was infallible, the Law sound. Let every man be subject to the Law, and if found wanting be accordingly punished. It is the voice of God, never mind the corrupt prophet. He would do his best to speak the voice of God with a sure voice, and woe betide thee if it spoke against you.
                  
       Now take for instance this young Lawyer, here, about twenty five years old, attempting to lecture the court and going off on a tangent in the process…
         
       •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
         The fact was that four friends had been out on a moonlit night on a fishing trip, many miles out in the waters. Save for a slight swish as the oars swept back the waters and the crocodiles whose eyes glittered in the soft moonlight keeping up with the boat, there was no other sound. The crocodiles always dogged boats whose occupants frequently threw fish into the water as a form of sacrifice
         Waiswa, one of the four friends had for some time suspected his colleague Wandera of maintaining an amorous relationship with his wife who he had recently discovered was pregnant. He was disgruntled and embittered as his many efforts to ensnare them in a compromising situation had borne no fruit. All he had to go on were rumours. Consequently the normally cheerful Waiswa of late maintained a sullen silence. Sudden bursts of ill-temper and a malevolent glare with which he constantly favoured Wandera.
         Wandera on the other hand was aware of his friend’s ill-feelings towards him. True, he had had an affair with beautiful Teresa, but for heaven sake did not think himself responsible for the pregnancy. To tick off her many lovers one needed more than one hand. In any case the relationship had come to an abrupt end about four months ago. But that was not the only thing on his mind.
     ‘I hear,’ Wandera began tentatively, letting the statement hang like a piece of thread in the silence.
      ‘I hear Teresa is pregnant.’ Behind him Waiswa momentarily paused his rowing, gripping his lower lip in his teeth. It was a notorious rumour and the other two shifted uneasily. A boat in the middle of the lake with the crocodiles keeping company is not the best place to start a fight, but Waiswa ploughed on feigning oblivion of the fact.
    ‘I could swear the baby is not yours, it’s a pity how some people turn out…’
     ‘Will you shut up?’ Growled Wanjala between clenched teeth. He was reputed to be a no nonsense man, and at his intervention Wandera fell silent.
     They rowed on in silence for another hour. Overhead the moon trailed and took refuge behind a cloud. Suddenly, behind him Wanjala heard a scuffle and turned round to see Wandera drop into the water with a splash, Waiswa standing over him. Wanjala asked him what had happened. The only reply was a blood curdling scream from the lake as the crocodile moved in for the kill and the only words they heard from Waiswa till he was arrested eight years later;
     ‘Let him die. It serves the fool right.’
They searched the whole night to no avail, save for the blood stained clothes found floating on the water. Waiswa disappeared the moment they touched shore and was arrested eight years later.

..•………………………………………………………………………………………….

      ‘My Lord, the prosecution has adduced evidence and failed to satisfy Court on two most important ingredients; that the deceased person is dead and that the accused person caused his death.’ The young blustering lawyer went on and on, unaware that the judge had long put down his pen. Even the prosecutor’s gently mocking smile was lost on him.
       On and on went he, belabouring Court on the accused person’s innocence and the burden and standard of proof, extensively quoting both statute and case law till the good judge was obliged to cut in;
       ‘With due respect Counsel; don’t lecture the Court on law. We are sufficiently acquainted with it.’
         And that is when he noticed it all, that only he carried the belief of the accused’s innocence, and that most probably he was going to hang. Waiswa was innocent, he had not pushed Wandera into the lake. But the people who had been in the boat had testified against him, even though they bore him no ill will. Counsel dropped his hands to his side and said;
        ‘At least think of the fact that the body was never found. The person could be alive somewhere…,’ the prosecutor laughed appreciatively as if it was a good joke. Not even the Counsel believed himself.

……………………………………………………………………………………

     In his summing up the judge noted:

     …I would wholeheartedly wish to believe in the innocence of the accused person,
     But I can’t. The evidence against him is overwhelming….Regarding the defence
     Counsel’s invitation to imagine the deceased person alive, it is nothing more than
      That, an imagination, a fanciful possibility…we have seen the bloodstained
      Clothes, heard his companions…of the malice he bore toward the deceased and
       the attack on him an entire hour after the deceased had ceased his taunting…
       It is more probable than not that the accused person is guilty of the murder of
       Wandera Emmanuel.

Waiswa was found guilty and accordingly sentenced to hang. He was led out of court staring before him stoically, his lower lip trembling imperceptibly. In due course the mistake of Law was hoisted six feet above the ground.

………………………………………………………………………………………..

      The day after the hanging while taking an afternoon nap, Wanjala’s fifteen year old son rushed up to him, looking like he had seen the devil himself. He dragged his father to the door and pointed at the gate, still stupefied. There was nothing there, except for a new TOYOTA RAV4 coming to a halt. The door opened and a crutch preceded followed by Wandera Emmanuel, whose murderer had hanged the previous day.
      Wanjala’s jaw sagged, and his eyes nearly bobbed out of their sockets, he tried to swallow but came up against the bulk of his tongue. When he eventually found his voice he let out a scream heard for a mile around that brought the entire village to his compound, by which time he had barricaded himself in and could not be convinced to stir a foot outside.
       The story came out, well a bit of it, for when he knew what had transpired he could not divulge everything. He had jumped into the lake, he had not been pushed, there had been no fight, he had swum to safety with the aid of a jerry can hidden on the boat and nobody had seen.
      The reason for this was that a few days before a cousin of his had stolen a huge sum of money and kept it with him. Being unscrupulous he had exploited the bad blood between him and Waiswa to fake his death and cheat the cousin of his money. He had only come back when he got word of the cousin’s death.
      The newspaper got wind of the story and ran it under the headline:
       DECEASED PERSON OUTLIVES MURDERER
His Lordship read it and spent the whole morning in an agitated state of mind. He went home to his study at noon. The next day the newspaper ran another story under the headline:
       THE LORD OF FANCIFUL POSSIBILITIES SHOOTS HIMSELF

Tuesday 25 October 2011

Land law notes


BAGUMA ISHA LLB 2


 

                    Fixtures


  • Fixtures are items that have been attached to the land to become part of the land itself
    • If land is sold, fixtures pass with the land
      • Colegrave v Dias Santos
    • If house mortgaged, fixtures are part of mortgagee’s security, whether attached before or after the mortgage
      • Meux v Jacobs
    • If land is leased or occupied by life tenant and possessor affixes something to the land the tenant will only have limited rights to remove it as it will be considered part of the landlord’s property
    • Upon death, fixtures pass to those entitled to the land, not those entitled to the chattels
      • Re Whaley

Difference between a chattel and a fixture

  • Law used to be that if something was fixed by any means it was a fixture
    • Degree of annexation from the land remains a factor, but no longer is as important as once was: Now used as determining intention
  • Present rule

Two limbed Test:
  1. Purpose of bringing item
  2. Degree of annexation
    • Holland v Hodgson (1872) LR 7 CP 328
    • FACTS
      • Owner of mill took out mortgage
      • Heavy looms on property, needed to be tied down firmly while they were being used
        • Had splayed feet with holes through which spikes were driven
        • Although bolted down, easily movable
      • Business defaulted on the mortgage, mortgageor claimed the looms
    • HELD
      • Held to be fixtures
        • Brought onto land to enhance mill’s value and usefulness
      • Court gave examples
        • If landowner builds stone wall consisting merely of a few bricks resting on each other
          • Although easily movable, it is a fixture
        • If builder stacks a few bricks on top of each other in the shape of a wall until they are used
          • Chattels



Whether an item is a fixture or a chattel will depend primarily upon the intention with which the item was put in place
  • If item placed on the property for better enjoyment or use of the property then it is a fixture
  • If thing was brought onto the property for the better enjoyment of use of the thing itself, then it will be regarded as a chattel
    • Leigh v Taylor

Things to consider to determine fixture or chattel:
    • Period of time intended to stay
      • Indefinite time: probably a fixture
      • Temporary purpose: probably chattel
    • Degree of fixation
      • Damage likely to be caused by removing item
        • More damage means likely to be fixture
    • Status of person bringing the item
      • If short term tenant brings something onto land, likely to be chattel
  • Australian Provincial Assurance Co Ltd v Coroneo [1938]
    • FACTS
      • Question whether chairs in cinema are chattels or fixtures
        • Chairs on in place for temporary time
    • HELD
      • Chairs were chattels

Two prima facie rebuttable presumptions to help determine whether fixture or chattel

  • Where the item is affixed to the land it is presumed to be a fixture
    • Burden of proof lies with those who assert otherwise
  • Where the item is not affixed to the land it is presumed to be a chattel
    • Burden of proof lies with those who assert that it is
  • Holland v Hodgson(1872) LR 7 CP 328

Rebuttable presumption that where the item is not affixed to the land it is presumed to be a chattel

  • Reid v Smith[1906]
    • FACTS
      • In order to protect against white ants, timber house built so it rested on the surfact of the land without any foundations
    • HELD
      • Intention obviously that house should be a fixture
        • Presumption rebutted

  • Permanent Trustees v Esanda (1991)
    • FACTS
      • Prefabricated house transported in two halves to a nursery to provide accommodation for seasonal workers
      • Property mortgaged and repayments defaulted
    • HELD
      • Chattel - House obviously meant to be transportable

Overall design of house may be relevant

  • Gregory’s Case [1866]
·         FACTS
o   Person builds a grand manor house
o   Owner installs marble garden furniture and marble lions resting freely by their own weight
o   Sold property
·         HELD
o   Fixtures – part of the overall design of the house
  • Berkley v Poullet (1976)
    • FACTS
      • Grand old English manor sold
      • One room contained great old paintings of families ancestors which hung in recesses which had been crafted to accommodate them
    • HELD
      • Pictures chattels – not part of the overall design of the house

Relevant intention is Objectively Determined

  • Although modern cases suggest looking to actual subjective intention to assist in determining the period of time the item intended to remain in position, and the function to be served by its annexation

Objective intention, gathered from facts that are ‘patent for all to see’

  • Hobson v Gorringe [1897]
    • FACTS
      • Gas cylinder engine leased from a gas company by mill owner
      • Gas company says at all times engine is to remain its property
      • Mill owner gets mortgage from Gorringe who assumes engine is part of the mill
      • Mill owner defaults, Gorringe demands engine
    • HELD
      • Gorringe gets engine
        • Objectively, a reasonable man might presume that the engines were part of the realty

·         Kolim’s Case: Pan Australian Credits v Kolim

    • FACTS:
      • Owner builds large commercial building which leaves room for air conditioner plant
      • Owner leases air conditioner plant
      • Owner mortgages property and defaults
      • Mortgager unaware that air conditioner not part of the property, and claims the air conditioner
    • HELD
      • Mortgagor has right to the air conditioner
        • Objectively, reasonable man might presume that air conditioner was part of the realty


Right to remove fixtures

  • Two categories in which may be a right for tenants to remove fixtures:
1.         Tenant and Landlord
      • If tenant brings fixture onto landlord’s property
      • Cannot remove items a previous tenant brought onto the land
2.         Life tenant and remainder
      • If life tenant brings fixture onto property and affixes it, does it belong to tenant or remainder holder?

Three Stage Test

  1. Is it a fixture?
    • If not, it is a chattel: tenant always has ownership rights and can remove it anytime they wish
  2. If so, how firmly fixed is the fixture
·         If so firmly fixed that it can not be removed without damaging either it or the property it is adjoined to, the fixture becomes a landlord’s fixture and cannot be removed by the tenant
  1. If not landlord’s fixture, tenant can remove item if it falls into one of these categories:
·         Trade fixture
·         Domestic or ornamental fixture
·         Underlying policy reason is to encourage tenants to make full use of premises and improve them

Landlord’s Fixture

  • Webb v Bevis (1941) All ER 247
    • FACTS
      • Tenant of field under short term lease built aircraft hanger
      • Laid concrete floor and fixed a superstructure deliberately designed to be removable
    • HELD
      • Superstructure was trade fixture, and thus removable
      • Concrete foundations found to be landlord’s fixture due to difficulty in removing them

  • Weller v Everitt (1990) 25 VLR 683 (Victoria)
    • FACTS
      • Blacksmith took lease in house and built extension
      • Wanted to remove extension when lease expired
    • HELD
      • Court refused to authories this as believed that removal would damage both it and the property to which it was attached

Trade fixture

  • Webb v Bevis (1941) All ER 247
    • FACTS
      • Tenant of field under short term lease built aircraft hanger
      • Laid concrete floor and fixed a superstructure deliberately designed to be removable
    • HELD
      • Superstructure was trade fixture, and thus removable
      • Concrete foundations found to be landlord’s fixture due to difficulty in removing them

Domestic or Ornamental Fixtures

  • Spyder v Phillipson (1931) 2 Ch
    • FACTS
      • Tenant had 21 year lease on flat in London
      • Half-way through lease, tenant installed expensive oak panelling, installed ‘no more securely than necessary’
    • HELD
      • Could remove it at end of lease, as panelling was there to enhance the realty, and therefore was a chattel not a fixture
  • Leigh v Taylor (1912) AC
    • FACTS
      • Life tenant installed valuable tapestries which are fixed, ‘but no more securely than is necessary’
    • HELD
      • Held in favour of life tenant’s estate (and against reversionary interest)
      • Judges did not make it clear whether this was because they were chattels or ornamental fixtures

Conflict between competing interests:
Mortgagor v Lessor: Legal v Equitable
  • Eg in Kolim’s case (Above)
    • Lessor has equitable interest to enter land to collect air conditioner
    • Mortgagor has legal interest taken for value without notice of lessor’s interest
    • Legal interest wins over equitable interest
Protecting hirer:

Mortgagor v Lessor: Equitable v Equitable

  • Re Samuel Allen & Sons Ltd [1907] 1 Ch 575
    • FACTS
      • Hiring arrangement with similar clause to Hobson (ie hired good remains property of hirer)
      • However mortgage was only equitable (as opposed to legal)
    • HELD:
      • Owner (who hired it to the mortgagee) has an equitable interest based upon a contractual right, over the property being mortgaged
      • Because later mortgage was only equitable, simple case of competing equitable rights
      • First equitable interest prevailed
        • Does not matter if the later equitable interest was taken for value and without notice
      • Note:
        • If under Torrens’ title, it would depend on who had registered the interest


Third Party Interests

Owners of chattels that have become fixtures via there method of attachment may have a right to enter and remove
  • Proprietary interest in the land, and is caveatable
  • Interest is extinguished upon sale of land to another party

If land has been mortgaged

  • Right of removal not available against mortgagor even if fixture for trade, ornamental or domestic purposes
    • Re The NSW Co-operative Ice and Cold Storage Co (1891)
    • Hobson v Gorringe
    • (ME) reason because equitable interest defeated by a later legal interest for value without notice

If landlord leases premises to another tenant after expiration of the lease, but before right to sever and remove fixtures has been exercised
  • Former tenant can remove fixtures in two situations
    • Right to sever and remove fixtures amounts to a grant of licence via deed (ME: as will be legal interest, first in time)
    • Later tenant agrees

If person (B) with an interest in land brings onto land a chattel belonging to another (A), and places it in such a manner that it becomes a fixture
  • And then later, the interest in land is passed to a third party (M) (Eg to mortgagee upon default)
    • Can A prevent M from selling the item along with the land?
      • Between A and B
        • A has contractual right to enter and sever the item
        • A has a type of equitable interest in the land entitling him to enter and sever
          • Equitable interest only exists if the agreement between A and B confers express or implied right to enter
            • If no provision, no equitable interest
              • Re Samuel Allen
            • A reservation of ownership provision does not imply a right to enter
              • F & M Horwood v Mark Building Enterprises Pty Ltd (1981)
      • Between A and M
        • A’s right is not enforceable against M (due to privity of contract)
        • Equitable interest will be enforceable if it has priority over M’s interest under general priority rules
          • If M’s interest is legal or registered, then A has no power to deny Ms right to deal with the item


Time limits regarding removal of fixtures

  • Used to be that had to remove before lease expired, but now:

Tenant entitled to remove fixtures for as long as the tenant remains in possession lawfully
    • If tenant surrenders lease (as opposed to it expiring), look to terms of surrender to see if right to remove fixtures remains
    • This applies even if lease may have expired, so long as possession is with Landlord’s consent, or under new lease of premises
  • New Zealand Government Property Corporation v HM & S Ltd [1982] QB 1145
  • Adopted in NSW in
    • D’Arcy v Burelli Investments Pty Ltd (1987) NSWLR
      • As long as tenant was there under a ‘genuine colour of right as a tenant’, right of removal remains

Qualifications to principle

  • Lease itself may state that tenant must remove fixture before lease expires
  • If tenant vacates premises before lease expires, tenant must remove fixtures before they leave, because by definition they are no longer in possession


Land law notes


BAGUMA ISHA LLB 2


 

                    Fixtures


  • Fixtures are items that have been attached to the land to become part of the land itself
    • If land is sold, fixtures pass with the land
      • Colegrave v Dias Santos
    • If house mortgaged, fixtures are part of mortgagee’s security, whether attached before or after the mortgage
      • Meux v Jacobs
    • If land is leased or occupied by life tenant and possessor affixes something to the land the tenant will only have limited rights to remove it as it will be considered part of the landlord’s property
    • Upon death, fixtures pass to those entitled to the land, not those entitled to the chattels
      • Re Whaley

Difference between a chattel and a fixture

  • Law used to be that if something was fixed by any means it was a fixture
    • Degree of annexation from the land remains a factor, but no longer is as important as once was: Now used as determining intention
  • Present rule

Two limbed Test:
  1. Purpose of bringing item
  2. Degree of annexation
    • Holland v Hodgson (1872) LR 7 CP 328
    • FACTS
      • Owner of mill took out mortgage
      • Heavy looms on property, needed to be tied down firmly while they were being used
        • Had splayed feet with holes through which spikes were driven
        • Although bolted down, easily movable
      • Business defaulted on the mortgage, mortgageor claimed the looms
    • HELD
      • Held to be fixtures
        • Brought onto land to enhance mill’s value and usefulness
      • Court gave examples
        • If landowner builds stone wall consisting merely of a few bricks resting on each other
          • Although easily movable, it is a fixture
        • If builder stacks a few bricks on top of each other in the shape of a wall until they are used
          • Chattels



Whether an item is a fixture or a chattel will depend primarily upon the intention with which the item was put in place
  • If item placed on the property for better enjoyment or use of the property then it is a fixture
  • If thing was brought onto the property for the better enjoyment of use of the thing itself, then it will be regarded as a chattel
    • Leigh v Taylor

Things to consider to determine fixture or chattel:
    • Period of time intended to stay
      • Indefinite time: probably a fixture
      • Temporary purpose: probably chattel
    • Degree of fixation
      • Damage likely to be caused by removing item
        • More damage means likely to be fixture
    • Status of person bringing the item
      • If short term tenant brings something onto land, likely to be chattel
  • Australian Provincial Assurance Co Ltd v Coroneo [1938]
    • FACTS
      • Question whether chairs in cinema are chattels or fixtures
        • Chairs on in place for temporary time
    • HELD
      • Chairs were chattels

Two prima facie rebuttable presumptions to help determine whether fixture or chattel

  • Where the item is affixed to the land it is presumed to be a fixture
    • Burden of proof lies with those who assert otherwise
  • Where the item is not affixed to the land it is presumed to be a chattel
    • Burden of proof lies with those who assert that it is
  • Holland v Hodgson(1872) LR 7 CP 328

Rebuttable presumption that where the item is not affixed to the land it is presumed to be a chattel

  • Reid v Smith[1906]
    • FACTS
      • In order to protect against white ants, timber house built so it rested on the surfact of the land without any foundations
    • HELD
      • Intention obviously that house should be a fixture
        • Presumption rebutted

  • Permanent Trustees v Esanda (1991)
    • FACTS
      • Prefabricated house transported in two halves to a nursery to provide accommodation for seasonal workers
      • Property mortgaged and repayments defaulted
    • HELD
      • Chattel - House obviously meant to be transportable

Overall design of house may be relevant

  • Gregory’s Case [1866]
·         FACTS
o   Person builds a grand manor house
o   Owner installs marble garden furniture and marble lions resting freely by their own weight
o   Sold property
·         HELD
o   Fixtures – part of the overall design of the house
  • Berkley v Poullet (1976)
    • FACTS
      • Grand old English manor sold
      • One room contained great old paintings of families ancestors which hung in recesses which had been crafted to accommodate them
    • HELD
      • Pictures chattels – not part of the overall design of the house

Relevant intention is Objectively Determined

  • Although modern cases suggest looking to actual subjective intention to assist in determining the period of time the item intended to remain in position, and the function to be served by its annexation

Objective intention, gathered from facts that are ‘patent for all to see’

  • Hobson v Gorringe [1897]
    • FACTS
      • Gas cylinder engine leased from a gas company by mill owner
      • Gas company says at all times engine is to remain its property
      • Mill owner gets mortgage from Gorringe who assumes engine is part of the mill
      • Mill owner defaults, Gorringe demands engine
    • HELD
      • Gorringe gets engine
        • Objectively, a reasonable man might presume that the engines were part of the realty

·         Kolim’s Case: Pan Australian Credits v Kolim

    • FACTS:
      • Owner builds large commercial building which leaves room for air conditioner plant
      • Owner leases air conditioner plant
      • Owner mortgages property and defaults
      • Mortgager unaware that air conditioner not part of the property, and claims the air conditioner
    • HELD
      • Mortgagor has right to the air conditioner
        • Objectively, reasonable man might presume that air conditioner was part of the realty


Right to remove fixtures

  • Two categories in which may be a right for tenants to remove fixtures:
1.         Tenant and Landlord
      • If tenant brings fixture onto landlord’s property
      • Cannot remove items a previous tenant brought onto the land
2.         Life tenant and remainder
      • If life tenant brings fixture onto property and affixes it, does it belong to tenant or remainder holder?

Three Stage Test

  1. Is it a fixture?
    • If not, it is a chattel: tenant always has ownership rights and can remove it anytime they wish
  2. If so, how firmly fixed is the fixture
·         If so firmly fixed that it can not be removed without damaging either it or the property it is adjoined to, the fixture becomes a landlord’s fixture and cannot be removed by the tenant
  1. If not landlord’s fixture, tenant can remove item if it falls into one of these categories:
·         Trade fixture
·         Domestic or ornamental fixture
·         Underlying policy reason is to encourage tenants to make full use of premises and improve them

Landlord’s Fixture

  • Webb v Bevis (1941) All ER 247
    • FACTS
      • Tenant of field under short term lease built aircraft hanger
      • Laid concrete floor and fixed a superstructure deliberately designed to be removable
    • HELD
      • Superstructure was trade fixture, and thus removable
      • Concrete foundations found to be landlord’s fixture due to difficulty in removing them

  • Weller v Everitt (1990) 25 VLR 683 (Victoria)
    • FACTS
      • Blacksmith took lease in house and built extension
      • Wanted to remove extension when lease expired
    • HELD
      • Court refused to authories this as believed that removal would damage both it and the property to which it was attached

Trade fixture

  • Webb v Bevis (1941) All ER 247
    • FACTS
      • Tenant of field under short term lease built aircraft hanger
      • Laid concrete floor and fixed a superstructure deliberately designed to be removable
    • HELD
      • Superstructure was trade fixture, and thus removable
      • Concrete foundations found to be landlord’s fixture due to difficulty in removing them

Domestic or Ornamental Fixtures

  • Spyder v Phillipson (1931) 2 Ch
    • FACTS
      • Tenant had 21 year lease on flat in London
      • Half-way through lease, tenant installed expensive oak panelling, installed ‘no more securely than necessary’
    • HELD
      • Could remove it at end of lease, as panelling was there to enhance the realty, and therefore was a chattel not a fixture
  • Leigh v Taylor (1912) AC
    • FACTS
      • Life tenant installed valuable tapestries which are fixed, ‘but no more securely than is necessary’
    • HELD
      • Held in favour of life tenant’s estate (and against reversionary interest)
      • Judges did not make it clear whether this was because they were chattels or ornamental fixtures

Conflict between competing interests:
Mortgagor v Lessor: Legal v Equitable
  • Eg in Kolim’s case (Above)
    • Lessor has equitable interest to enter land to collect air conditioner
    • Mortgagor has legal interest taken for value without notice of lessor’s interest
    • Legal interest wins over equitable interest
Protecting hirer:

Mortgagor v Lessor: Equitable v Equitable

  • Re Samuel Allen & Sons Ltd [1907] 1 Ch 575
    • FACTS
      • Hiring arrangement with similar clause to Hobson (ie hired good remains property of hirer)
      • However mortgage was only equitable (as opposed to legal)
    • HELD:
      • Owner (who hired it to the mortgagee) has an equitable interest based upon a contractual right, over the property being mortgaged
      • Because later mortgage was only equitable, simple case of competing equitable rights
      • First equitable interest prevailed
        • Does not matter if the later equitable interest was taken for value and without notice
      • Note:
        • If under Torrens’ title, it would depend on who had registered the interest


Third Party Interests

Owners of chattels that have become fixtures via there method of attachment may have a right to enter and remove
  • Proprietary interest in the land, and is caveatable
  • Interest is extinguished upon sale of land to another party

If land has been mortgaged

  • Right of removal not available against mortgagor even if fixture for trade, ornamental or domestic purposes
    • Re The NSW Co-operative Ice and Cold Storage Co (1891)
    • Hobson v Gorringe
    • (ME) reason because equitable interest defeated by a later legal interest for value without notice

If landlord leases premises to another tenant after expiration of the lease, but before right to sever and remove fixtures has been exercised
  • Former tenant can remove fixtures in two situations
    • Right to sever and remove fixtures amounts to a grant of licence via deed (ME: as will be legal interest, first in time)
    • Later tenant agrees

If person (B) with an interest in land brings onto land a chattel belonging to another (A), and places it in such a manner that it becomes a fixture
  • And then later, the interest in land is passed to a third party (M) (Eg to mortgagee upon default)
    • Can A prevent M from selling the item along with the land?
      • Between A and B
        • A has contractual right to enter and sever the item
        • A has a type of equitable interest in the land entitling him to enter and sever
          • Equitable interest only exists if the agreement between A and B confers express or implied right to enter
            • If no provision, no equitable interest
              • Re Samuel Allen
            • A reservation of ownership provision does not imply a right to enter
              • F & M Horwood v Mark Building Enterprises Pty Ltd (1981)
      • Between A and M
        • A’s right is not enforceable against M (due to privity of contract)
        • Equitable interest will be enforceable if it has priority over M’s interest under general priority rules
          • If M’s interest is legal or registered, then A has no power to deny Ms right to deal with the item


Time limits regarding removal of fixtures

  • Used to be that had to remove before lease expired, but now:

Tenant entitled to remove fixtures for as long as the tenant remains in possession lawfully
    • If tenant surrenders lease (as opposed to it expiring), look to terms of surrender to see if right to remove fixtures remains
    • This applies even if lease may have expired, so long as possession is with Landlord’s consent, or under new lease of premises
  • New Zealand Government Property Corporation v HM & S Ltd [1982] QB 1145
  • Adopted in NSW in
    • D’Arcy v Burelli Investments Pty Ltd (1987) NSWLR
      • As long as tenant was there under a ‘genuine colour of right as a tenant’, right of removal remains

Qualifications to principle

  • Lease itself may state that tenant must remove fixture before lease expires
  • If tenant vacates premises before lease expires, tenant must remove fixtures before they leave, because by definition they are no longer in possession