Elitestone Ltd. v. Morris et al., (1997) 215 N.R. 161 (HL)

• Case Date: May 01, 1997
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1997), 215 N.R. 161 (HL)

Elitestone Ltd. v. Morris (1997), 215 N.R. 161 (HL)

MLB headnote and full text

Elitestone Limited (respondents) v. Morris and Another (A.P.) (appellants)

Indexed As: Elitestone Ltd. v. Morris et al.

House of Lords

London, England

Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Lloyd of Berwick,

Lord Nolan, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead and Lord Clyde

May 1, 1997.

Summary:

Elitestone Ltd. was the freehold owner of land, which was divided into 27 lots. It had purchased the land for redevelopment. Morris occupied a bungalow on one of the lots. Elitestone issued proceedings claiming possession against all 27 occupiers. Morris defended on the basis, inter alia, that he was a residential tenant from year to year and therefore entitled to the protection of the Rent Act 1977.

An assistant recorder held that Morris's case turned on whether his bungalow formed part of the realty. If it did, Morris was entitled to the declaration. The bungalow rested on its own weight on concrete pillars without any attachment. However, it could not be taken down and re-erected else­where. It could only be removed by demo­lition. The assistant recorder held that the bungalow formed part of the realty. Elites­tone appealed.

The Court of Appeal of England allowed the appeal. Morris appealed.

The House of Lords allowed the appeal and restored the decision of the assistant recorder.

Landlord and Tenant - Topic 8203

Fixtures and personalty - General prin­ciples - What constitutes a fixture - [See Real Property - Topic 4203 and Real Property - Topic 4205 ].

Real Property - Topic 4203

Fixtures - General principles - Consider­ations in determining what constitutes a fixture - Elitestone purchased land for redevelopment - It was divided into 27 lots - Morris occupied a bungalow on one of the lots - Elitestone issued proceedings claiming possession - Morris argued that he was a residential tenant from year to year and therefore entitled to the protec­tion of the Rent Act 1977 - The case turned on whether Morris's bungalow formed part of the realty - The House of Lords stated that intention to form part of the realty was "... only relevant to the extent that it can be derived from the degree and object of the annexation" - See paragraph 19 - Intention was to be assessed objectively - It was the purpose which the object was serving which had to be regarded, not the purpose of the person who put it there - See paragraphs 36 to 38.

Real Property - Topic 4205

Fixtures - General principles - What constitutes a fixture - Elitestone purchased land for redevelopment - It was divided into 27 lots - Morris occupied a bungalow on one of the lots - Elitestone issued proceedings claiming possession - Morris argued that he was a residential tenant from year to year and therefore entitled to the protection of the Rent Act 1977 - If Morris's bungalow formed part of the realty, he was entitled to the declaration - The bungalow rested on its own weight on concrete pillars without any attachment - However, it could only be removed by demolition - The House of Lords stated that it was better to avoid the traditional two-fold distinction between chattels and fixtures in this case, and adopt the three-fold classification of (a) chattel, (b) fixture and (c) part and parcel of the land itself, (b) and (c) being treated as part of the land - The court held that the bungalow had become part and parcel of the land itself.

Cases Noticed:

Melluish v. B.M.I. Ltd. (No. 3), [1996] A.C. 454 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 9].

Boswell v. Crucible Steel Co., [1925] 1 K.B. 119 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Billing v. Pill, [1954] 1 Q.B. 70 (D.C.), refd to. [para. 11].

Webb v. Bevis (Frank) Ltd., [1940] 1 All E.R. 247, dist. [paras. 12, 31].

Deen v. Andrews, [1986] 1 E.G.L.R. 262, dist. [para. 12].

Holland v. Hodgson (1872), L.R. 7 C.P. 328 (Ex. Ch.), appld. [paras. 15, 36].

R. v. Otley, Suffolk (Inhabitants) (1830), 1 B. & Ad. 161, refd to. [para. 16].

Wansborough v. Maton (1836), 4 Ad. & El. 884, refd to. [para. 16].

Wiltshear v. Cottrell (1853), 1 E. & B. 674, refd to. [para. 16].

Reid v. Smith (1905), 3 C.L.R. 656 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [paras. 16, 34].

Snedeker v. Warring, 2 Kernan 178, refd to. [para. 16].

Goff v. O'Connor, 16 Ill. 422, refd to. [para. 16].

Leigh v. Taylor, [1902] A.C. 157 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 17, 30].

Hobson v. Gorringe, [1897] 1 Ch. 182 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 19, 37].

Street v. Mountford, [1985] A.C. 809 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 19].

Dibble (H.E.) Ltd. v. Moore, [1970] 2 Q.B. 181 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

De Falbe, Re; Ward v. Taylor, [1901] 1 Ch. 523 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Ward v. Taylor - see De Falbe, Re; Ward v. Taylor.

Boyd v. Shorrock (1867), L.R. 5 Eq. 72, refd to. [para. 27].

Gawan, Re; Ex parte Barclay (1855), 5 De G.M. & G. 403, refd to. [para. 27].

Bain v. Brand (1876), 1 App. Cas. 762 (H.L.), agreed with [para. 29].

Niven v. Pitcairn (1823), 2 S. 270, refd to. [para. 33].

Hellawell v. Eastwood (1851), 6 Exch. 295, refd to. [para. 33].

Assessor for Glasgow v. Gilmartin, [1920] S.C. 488, refd to. [para. 35].

Menzies (John) & Co. v. Assessor for Edinburgh, [1937] S.C. 784, refd to. [para. 35].

Assessor for Renfrewshire v. Mitchell, [1966] S.L.T. 53, refd to. [para. 35].

Assessor for Dunbarton v. McKenzie (L.K.) and Partners, [1968] S.L.T. 82, refd to. [para. 35].

Redgate Caravan Parks Ltd. v. Assessor for Ayrshire, [1973] S.L.T. 52, refd to. [para. 35].

D'Eyncourt v. Gregory (1866), L.R. 3 Eq. 382, refd to. [para. 36].

Reynolds v. Ashby & Son, [1904] A.C. 466, refd to. [para. 37].

Dixon v. Fisher (1843), 5 D. 775, refd to. [para. 38].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Heineccius, Elementa Iuris Civilis secundum ordinem Pandectarum, Lib. I, Title VIII, s. 199 [para. 32].

Woodfall, Law of Landlord and Tenant (1994)(Release 36), vol. 1, pp. 13 to 83, para. 13.131 [para. 14].

Counsel:

Paul Morgan, Q.C., and Stephen Cottle, for the appellants;

James Thom, for the respondents.

Agents:

Smith Llewelyn Partnership, for the ap­pellants;

T.G. Jones Associates, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard at London, England, by Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Nolan, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead and Lord Clyde, of the House of Lords.

On May 1, 1997, the decision of the House of Lords was delivered and the fol­lowing speeches were given:

Lord Browne-Wilkinson - see para­graph 1;

Lord Lloyd of Berwick - see paragraphs 2 to 22;

Lord Nolan - see paragraph 23;

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead - see para­graph 24;

Lord Clyde - see paragraphs 25 to 41.