Chelsea Yacht and Boat Club v Pope

Last updated

Chelsea Yacht & Boat Company v Pope
CourtCourt of Appeal
Full case nameChelsea Yacht & Boat Company Limited v Justin Pope
Citation(s)[2000] EWCA Civ 425
Case history
Prior action(s)Appellant lost in the West London County Court before HHJ Cotran
(case leapfrog-appealed)
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingTuckey LJ
Waller LJ
Morritt LJ
Keywords
Co-ownership

Chelsea Yacht and Boat Company v Pope [2001] 2 All ER 409 is an English legal case. The case established that a houseboat cannot form part of the land (real property) as the degree of annexation is insufficient. Secondly the court held that as a result a rented houseboat to an occupier is not a dwelling house, under Part One of the Housing Act 1988 and is a chattel of its owner. The licence to occupy can be revoked, whether instantly or on reasonable notice, rather than under the more lengthy possession proceedings of the law of residential tenancies.

Contents

The court applied the test of the most senior court in Elitestone Limited v Morris [1997] which found positively in favour of a chalet being annexed as part of the land.

Facts

Pope rented since 1993 a houseboat where he lived north of Battersea Bridge on the left bank, aground for half of the time due to its position and the tide (on the Tideway). The owner brought possession proceedings under the Housing Act 1998; the preliminary legal question was whether this was the correct procedure as if it were not a "dwelling" it would instead be a "chattel" so possession could be more quickly got back by the landlord.

Decision

The case established that a houseboat does not form part of the land which is not in common ownership (such as through adverse possession of the river bed) as the degree of annexation is insufficient. [1] [2]

Tuckey LJ gave the lead judgment:

...The principles by which to test whether a chattel has become part of the land have recently been considered by the House of Lords in Elitestone Limited v Morris [1997] 1 WLR 687. In that case the question was whether a chalet resting only by its own weight on concrete pillars set into the ground had become part of the land. The chalet was connected to the usual services. It could not be taken down and reerected elsewhere; it could only be removed by demolition. The House restored the assistant recorder's conclusion that it was part of the land. The head note says:

"The answer to the question whether a structure became part and parcel of the land itself depended on the degree and the object of annexation to the land; that, assessed objectively, a house built in such a way that it could not be removed except by destruction could not have been intended to remain a chattel and must have been intended to form part of the realty."

...Ms Easty...on behalf of Mr Pope referred to a number of other cases under different legislation. First, she referred to rating cases where the Court had to consider whether the occupiers of a hulk Cory v Bristow [1877]... a landing stage, Forrest v Overseers of Greenwich [1858]...; and the HispaniolaWestminister City Council v Woodbury [1991]..., all in the Thames were in rateable occupation of land. But these cases only illustrate the circumstances in which under the intricacies of rating law a chattel becomes rateable if it occupies land or is enjoyed with land. They shed no light on the circumstances in which a chattel becomes part of the land and therefore I do not find them of assistance in this case. The same applies to the poll tax case of Stubbs v Hartnell' [1997]...which concerned a houseboat in the Thames.

...

Turning then to the object or purpose of annexure, Miss Easty strongly submits that the attachment of the houseboat was to provide a permanent home for its occupant. I do not agree. It is not necessary to annex the houseboat to the land to enable it to be used as a home. The attachments were, like the ship's anchor referred to by Blackburn J, to prevent the houseboat from being carried by the tide or the weather up or down stream and to provide the services to it.

For these reasons I conclude that the houseboat has not become part of the land. I support this conclusion on the grounds of common sense. It is common sense that a house built on land is part of the land. (See Lord Lloyd in Elitestone...). So too it is common sense that a boat on a river is not part of the land. A boat, albeit one used as a home, is not of the same genus as real property. [1]

Waller LJ agreed giving no opinion.

Morritt LJ gave his own concurring opinion.

As the three judges agreed, Chelsea Yacht and Boat Club could recover their asset as a licence to occupy which expired, not waiting among other things for 28 days to pass from falling into arrears, nor did the law require a notice to be served. No notice to quit "was strictly required". [1]

See also

Related Research Articles

Adverse possession, sometimes colloquially described as "squatter's rights", is a legal principle in the Anglo-American common law under which a person who does not have legal title to a piece of property—usually land —may acquire legal ownership based on continuous possession or occupation of the property without the permission (licence) of its legal owner. The possession by a person is not adverse if they are in possession as a tenant or licensee of the legal owner.

Replevin or claim and delivery is a legal remedy, which enables a person to recover personal property taken wrongfully or unlawfully, and to obtain compensation for resulting losses.

In tort law, detinue is an action to recover for the wrongful taking of personal property. It is initiated by an individual who claims to have a greater right to their immediate possession than the current possessor. For an action in detinue to succeed, a claimant must first prove that he had better right to possession of the chattel than the defendant, and second, that the defendant refused to return the chattel once demanded by the claimant.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fixture (property law)</span> Legal concept; physical property which is permanently attached to real property

A fixture, as a legal concept, means any physical property that is permanently attached (fixed) to real property. Property not affixed to real property is considered chattel property. Fixtures are treated as a part of real property, particularly in the case of a security interest. A classic example of a fixture is a building, which, in the absence of language to the contrary in a contract of sale, is considered part of the land itself and not a separate piece of property. Generally speaking, the test for deciding whether an article is a fixture or a chattel turns on the purpose of attachment. If the purpose was to enhance the land, the article is likely a fixture; if the article was affixed to enhance the use of the chattel itself, the article is likely a chattel.

Trover is a form of lawsuit in common-law countries for recovery of damages for wrongful taking of personal property. Trover belongs to a series of remedies for such wrongful taking, its distinctive feature being recovery only for the value of whatever was taken, not for the recovery of the property itself.

<i>Kay v Lambeth LBC</i>

Kay v Lambeth London Borough Council; Price and others and others v Leeds City Council [2006] were two, conjoined appeals in the final court of appeal relevant for English property law, UK human rights and English tort law (trespass). It involved claims for possession by two landlords against former short-term occupiers, heavily placing reliance in their defence on article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, with circumstances outwith the other laws.

<i>Olley v Marlborough Court Ltd</i>

Olley v Marlborough Court Hotel[1949] 1 KB 532 is an English contract law case on exclusion clauses in contract law. The case stood for the proposition that a representation made by one party cannot become a term of a contract if made after the agreement was made. The representation can only be binding where it was made at the time the contract was formed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Occupiers' Liability Act 1957</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that covers occupiers' liability. The result of the Third Report of the Law Reform Committee, the Act was introduced to Parliament as the Occupiers' Liability Bill and granted the Royal Assent on 6 June 1957, coming into force on 1 January 1958. The Act unified several classes of visitors to property and the duty of care owed to them by the occupier, as well as codifying elements of the common law relating to this duty of care. It also covered the duty owed to parties to a contract entering the property and ways of excluding the liability for visitors. The Act introduced an element of liability for landlords who failed to maintain their properties and were as a result responsible for the injury of a non-tenant, something counter to the previous common law rule in English law. The Act is still valid law, and forms much of the law relating to occupiers' liability in English law along with the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984.

<i>Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset</i>

Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset[1990] UKHL 14 is an English land law, trusts law and matrimonial law case. It specifically deals with the translation into money of physical contributions from a cohabitee or spouse, under which its principles have been largely superseded.

Conversion is an intentional tort consisting of "taking with the intent of exercising over the chattel an ownership inconsistent with the real owner's right of possession". In England & Wales, it is a tort of strict liability. Its equivalents in criminal law include larceny or theft and criminal conversion. In those jurisdictions that recognise it, criminal conversion is a lesser crime than theft/larceny.

<i>Street v Mountford</i>

Street v Mountford[1985] UKHL 4 is an English land law case from the House of Lords. It set out principles to determine whether someone who occupied a property had a tenancy, or only a licence. This mattered for the purpose of statutory tenant rights to a reasonable rent, and had a wider significance as a lease had "proprietary" status and would bind third parties.

<i>Parker v British Airways Board</i>

Parker v British Airways Board [1982] 1 QB 1004 is an English property law case ordered by the Court of Appeal.

<i>Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold</i>

Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold[1988] EWCA Civ 14 is an English land law case decided by the Court of Appeal. It establishes that in English law rent is not required for the creation of a tenancy. However its judgement on the requirements on certainty of duration of a lease has been discredited by Prudential Assurance Co v London Residuary Body2 AC 386

<i>Errington v Wood</i>

Errington v Wood[1951] EWCA Civ 2 is an English contract law and English land law judicial decision of the Court of Appeal concerning agreement and the right to specific performance of an assurance that is relied on.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">English land law</span> Law of real property in England and Wales

English land law is the law of real property in England and Wales. Because of its heavy historical and social significance, land is usually seen as the most important part of English property law. Ownership of land has its roots in the feudal system established by William the Conqueror after 1066, and with a gradually diminishing aristocratic presence, now sees a large number of owners playing in an active market for real estate.

The history of rent control in England and Wales is a part of English land law concerning the development of rent regulation in England and Wales. Controlling the prices that landlords could make their tenants pay formed the main element of rent regulation, and was in place from 1915 until its abolition by the Housing Act 1988.

A property tax known as "rates" has been levied in Hong Kong since 1845. The tax applies to all domestic and commercial properties unless exempted, and is based upon the rental value of the property, re-assessed each year. Formerly part of the revenue went to the Urban Council and, from 1986, the Regional Council, but since 2000 the whole amount goes to the Hong Kong Government.

Residents of Joe Slovo Community, Western Cape v Thubelisha Homes and Others is an important case in South African property law, heard by the Constitutional Court on August 21, 2008, with judgment handed down on June 10.

Ndlovu v Ngcobo; Bekker and Another v Jika, an important case in South African property law, was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal on May 23, 2002, with judgment handed down on August 30.

<i>National Provincial Bank Ltd v Ainsworth</i>

National Provincial Bank Ltd v Ainsworth [1965] is an English land law and family law case, concerning the quality of a person's interest in a home when people live together, as well as licenses in land.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Computer-aided transcript of the case http://www.bailii.org British and Irish Legal Information Institute
  2. ↑ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 1 December 2008. Retrieved 16 February 2022.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.