Elitestone Ltd v Morris and another
Elitestone Ltd v Morris and another
- 1997
- All England Law Reports [1997] 2 All ER 513-525(13) .
HL 1 May 1997. The plaintiffs (E) were freehold owners of a parcel of land divided into lots. The defendants (M) occupied a bungalow on one lot. The bungalow rested on concrete foundation blocks in the ground. E wished to redevelop the land and issued proceedings against the occupiers. M resisted on the grounds that they were protected by the Rent Act 1977. The assistant recorder held that the bungalow had become annexed to and part of the realty and that the defendants were statutory tenants. The CA allowed E`s appeal holding that the bungalow was a chattel because it merely rested on the foundation blocks, and so was not included in the tenancy of the lot. M appealed to the House of Lords. Their appeal was allowed on the grounds that when a house was built in such a way that it could not be removed except by demolition, it could not have been intended to remain a chattel and must have been intended to form part of the realty. Decision of the CA reversed.
BUNGALOW
CHATTELS
DEMOLITION
ELITESTONE LTD V MORRIS AND ANOTHER
FIXTURES
PHYSICAL ATTACHMENT
PROTECTED TENANT
RENT ACT 1977
STATUTORY TENANTS
HL 1 May 1997. The plaintiffs (E) were freehold owners of a parcel of land divided into lots. The defendants (M) occupied a bungalow on one lot. The bungalow rested on concrete foundation blocks in the ground. E wished to redevelop the land and issued proceedings against the occupiers. M resisted on the grounds that they were protected by the Rent Act 1977. The assistant recorder held that the bungalow had become annexed to and part of the realty and that the defendants were statutory tenants. The CA allowed E`s appeal holding that the bungalow was a chattel because it merely rested on the foundation blocks, and so was not included in the tenancy of the lot. M appealed to the House of Lords. Their appeal was allowed on the grounds that when a house was built in such a way that it could not be removed except by demolition, it could not have been intended to remain a chattel and must have been intended to form part of the realty. Decision of the CA reversed.
BUNGALOW
CHATTELS
DEMOLITION
ELITESTONE LTD V MORRIS AND ANOTHER
FIXTURES
PHYSICAL ATTACHMENT
PROTECTED TENANT
RENT ACT 1977
STATUTORY TENANTS