Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.


The Nature Of Land And Rights Notes

GDL Law Notes > GDL Land Law Notes

This is an extract of our The Nature Of Land And Rights document, which we sell as part of our GDL Land Law Notes collection written by the top tier of Cambridge/Bpp/College Of Law students.

The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our GDL Land Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:


Land (s.205(1)(ix) Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA 1925)
o Includes physical land, buildings, fixtures (corporeal hereditaments), and rights over land (incorporeal hereditaments)
o Includes ground below (Grigsby v Melville - cellar) and lower airspace above the ground (Bernstein v Skyviews)
o Treasure belongs to the Crown (Treasure Act 1996)
o Forgotten property is not abandoned property (Moffat v
Fixtures vs Chattels

Attached to the land is part of the land (Holland v
Hodgson), two part test:
 1) Degree of Annexation - if moveable or resting on its own weight then a chattel (Culling v Tufnell)
 2) Purpose of Annexation - was it put there to improve the property? E.g. a wall hanging passes degree test but under purpose test it fails as only there to be looked at and enjoyed (Leigh v Taylor)
o Chattels are goods and others not part of the land.
o Anything that is a fixture on the date of sale or mortgage is a part of the property and cannot be sold/removed.


Land users fall into one of three categories

A - a property/proprietary right (e.g. a lease, easement,
o B - a personal right (e.g. they are a guest of X)
 All this means is that they cannot be classed as a trespasser (Thomas v Sorrell).
 Can only be binding in so far as they are in personal constructive trusts.
o C - no right at all (e.g. a trespasser - nb one day they may become an adverse possessor and gain a property right).
 Can be removed easily (possession order can be
Purchaser for value without notice ('T')
o If A's right is proprietary, then it is capable of binding T or capable of binding the land.
 This right is a part of the land - they affect the land potentially for ever.
o B's right is personal it is inherently incapable of affecting/binding T on the land.
 King v David Allen [1916] - above principle declared.
 Street v Mountford [1985] - Landlords tried to call as many things as possible a license in order that not too many tenants were classified under the Rent Act


Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our GDL Land Law Notes.

More GDL Land Law Samples