Ownership of Property & Proprietary Estoppel

1449 Words3 Pages

There is uncertainty surrounding the law in regards to the ownership of property and proprietary estoppel. This paper will deal with these issues by analysing two cases that involve these questions. It will first address Jack’s case and whether the two objects in question are chattels or fixtures; then, it will examine a Laurence’s case and whether he can rely on proprietary estoppel or not. By dealing with the two cases, this paper will clarify questions of what constitutes a chattel or fixture, and in what situations proprietary estoppel may apply.

Jack’s Case
A fixture is an object that is considered part of the land, whereas, a chattel is an object that is typically not fixed to the land. In the present case, Jack purchased a house from Val. Jack realized that some of the objects he considered part of the property was missing and wants to know who these objects belong to. In determining whether an object is a fixture or a chattel depends on according to Berkley v. Poulett , the degree of annexation of the object to the land and the purpose of the object’s annexation. The degree of annexation test “dictates that the greater the degree of annexation, the more likely the object is a fixture” , although there are some exceptions to this rule. An object that is resting on its own weight does not require any degree of annexation and may be considered a fixture depending on its purpose. The purpose of annexation, and more important part of the test, considers the purpose as to why the object is annexed to the land. If the object is annexed for the purpose of enjoying the object itself, it is considered a chattel; whereas, if the object is annexed for the purpose of enjoying the property as a whole, the object will be considered a ...

... middle of paper ...

...e, the bronze statues are fixtures because they are part of the architectural design of the property, whereas the wardrobe is a chattel because the purpose of its annexation was to stabilize it so it could be enjoyed. In Laurence’s case, he is able to rely on proprietary estoppel to prevent Wanda from selling the property to Matt because he relied on Wanda’s acceptance of his offer and suffered a detriment by investing £20,000 into the property because of the mistaken belief.

Works Cited

Berkley v Poulett [1977] EGD 754

Botham v T.S.B. Bank plc [1997] 73 P & CR D1

Coombes v Smith [1986] 1 WLR 808

D’Eyncourt v Gregory (1866) LR 3 Eq 382

Dillwyn v Llewellyn (1866) 4 De GF & J 517

Leigh v Taylor [1902] AC 157

Sayles, Victoria. Land Law. 3rd Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.

Thorner v Major [2009] 3 ALL ER 945

Willmott v Barber (1880) 15 Ch 95

Open Document