3

THE RIGHT TO EXCLUDE ........................................................................................................................................... 24 Stow v Mineral Holdings (Australia) (1977) ............................................................................................................................... 24

CONTRACTUAL LICENSES ...........................................................................................................................25

PROPERTY RIGHTS AND CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS ............................................................................................................ 25 LICENCES: BARE, CONTRACTUAL OR COUPLED WITH AN INTEREST.................................................................................... 25

Licenses and Original Parties .............................................................................................................................................................. 25 Cowell v Rosehill Racecourse Co (1937) ..................................................................................................................................... 25

Availability of Specific Performance ................................................................................................................................................... 25 NSW Rifle Association v Commonwealth (2012) ....................................................................................................................... 26

LICENSES AND THIRD PARTIES; NEW PROPERTY .........................................................................................27

PRINCIPLES ........................................................................................................................................................... 27 King v David Allen & Sons, Billposting Ltd (1916) ..................................................................................................................... 27 Yanner v Eaton (1999) ................................................................................................................................................................. 27 Georgeski v Owners Corporation Strata Plan (2004) ...................................................................................................................... 27

NUMERUS CLAUSUS PRINCIPLE (SEE BRENDAN’S ESSAY) .............................................................................................. 28 Outline ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 28

PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS ......................................................................................29

OUTLINE ............................................................................................................................................................... 29 ARE PERSONS PROPERTY? – DAVIES AND NAFFINE ....................................................................................................... 29 PROPERTY AND BODY PARTS .................................................................................................................................... 29

Moore v Regents of the University of California (1990) ............................................................................................................ 29 Doodeward v Spence (1908) ........................................................................................................................................................ 29

PROPRIETARY RIGHTS IN HUMAN TISSUE ................................................................................................................... 29 OUTLINE ............................................................................................................................................................... 29

BOUNDARIES OF PROPERTY RIGHTS ...........................................................................................................31

PROPERTY RIGHTS AND PRIVACY ............................................................................................................................... 31 Outline ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 31

Victoria Park Racing and Recreation Grounds v Taylor (1937) ................................................................................................ 31 Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats (2002) ............................................................................................... 31

Australia’s Tort of Privacy Progression ............................................................................................................................................... 31 PROPERTY AND THE RIGHT TO WORK ........................................................................................................................ 32

Outline ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 32 Dorman v Roger (1982) ............................................................................................................................................................... 32

PROPERTY RIGHTS AND CIVIL RIGHTS ........................................................................................................................ 32 Outline ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 32

Davis v Commonwealth (1988) ................................................................................................................................................... 32 PROPERTY RIGHTS AND HUMAN RIGHTS .................................................................................................................... 33

Outline ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 33 Should Australian Bill of Rights Protect Property Rights? ................................................................................................................... 33

#FIXTURES AND CHATTELS .........................................................................................................................34

PROBLEM QUESTION STRUCTURE ............................................................................................................................. 34 Intro .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 34 Presumptions ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 34 Degree & Purpose of Annexation ....................................................................................................................................................... 34 Tenants- Renters and life Tenants ...................................................................................................................................................... 34 Cases ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 34 Irrigation equipment (annexation essential for operation of equipment): NAB v Blacker (2000) .............................................. 34

LAND, FIXTURES & CHATTELS .....................................................................................................................35

FIXTURES .............................................................................................................................................................. 35 General Principles ............................................................................................................................................................................... 35

Holland v Hodgson (1872) ........................................................................................................................................................... 35 Leigh v Taylor (1902) ................................................................................................................................................................... 35 Re Whaley (1908) ......................................................................................................................................................................... 35 Norton v Dashwood (1896) ......................................................................................................................................................... 35 Hobson v Gorringe (1897) ........................................................................................................................................................... 35

Standard Practices .............................................................................................................................................................................. 36 Belgrave Nominees Pty Ltd v Barlin-Scott Airconditioning Pty Ltd (1984) ............................................................................. 36

34

#Fixtures and Chattels

Problem Question Structure

Intro

In order to determine who has (property rights)/(rights to possession) in the object, it is necessary to establish whether it is a fixture or a chattel

Fixtures are chattels which have become part of the realty by virtue of being attached to it in a particular way

Presumptions

The object will be presumed to be a chattel where there is no annexation and will be presumed to be a fixture where there is annexation (Holland v Hodgson 1872)

1. In this case, object is annexed to land by way of _____________ and therefore is prima facie a fixture OR

2. In this case, object is free-standing and therefore is prima facie a chattel These presumptions can be rebutted by considering the intentions of the person who annexed the chattel (Hobson v

Gorringe 1879)

Degree & Purpose of Annexation

The intention of the person who affixed the chattel is evidenced through the degree and purpose of annexation, this is an objective test (Hobson v Gorringe 1879)

o To determine the degree of annexation, the following can be considered: Whether the item can be removed without causing damage to the land (Leigh v Taylor 1902) or to the

object (Norton v Dashwood 1896) o To determine the purpose of annexation, the following can be considered:

Whether the annexation was for the purpose of enjoying the chattel (Palumberi v Palumberi 1986) or for the purpose of enjoying the land, e.g.

To fit with the character of the room/enhance the style of the room (Re Whaley 1908) Annexation necessary to use object properly, such as to hold printing press steady (AG v RT

Co 1957) or to use gas engine more efficiently (Hobson v Gorringe 1897) Usual practice of fitting certain objects permanently to land, such as air conditioners

(Belgrave Nominees v berlin-Scott Air Conditioning 1984); stoves and carpets (Palumberi v Palumberi 1986)

Tenants- Renters and life Tenants

Rules There are some exceptions to these rules in the case of tenant’s fixtures, allowing tenants to remove fixtures in certain

circumstances. Generally, a tenant may remove fixtures if they are of the following nature:

o Trade, e.g. shelves and counters (Harding v National Insurance 1871); petrol pumps at a garage (Smith v City 1940); shrubs planted by a market gardener (Wardell v Usher 1841)

o Ornamental/domestic, e.g. wood panelling, fire places (Spyer v Phillipson 1931) Time for removal

The tenant may remove the fixture: o Tenancies of certain duration: At any time prior to termination of lease (Darcy v Burelli 1989) o Tenancies of uncertain duration (life tenancies): reasonable time after termination of tenancy (Ex parte

Brooke; Re Roberts 1878) Probably not relevant, not really covered in textbook, new laws which affect rights of tenants p81

Chattels annexed without permission General rule, no right to recover (Chateau Douglas Hunter Valley v Chateau Douglas Hunter Valley 1978)

Cases

Tapestries: Leigh v Taylor (1902); Re Whaley (1908); Norton v Dashwood (1896) Gas engine (affixed to steady machine): Hobson v Gorringe (1897) Air-conditioning unit: Belgrave Nominees v berlin-Scott Airconditioning (1984) Printing Press (affixed for efficient use): AG v RT (1957)

Irrigation equipment (annexation essential for operation of equipment): NAB v Blacker (2000)

35

Land, Fixtures & Chattels

Fixtures

General Principles

Fixtures are chattels which have become part of the realty by virtue of having been attached to it in a particular way, or annexed to it.

Annexation becomes important where: o Sale of land o Life tenancy comes to an end o Default on a mortgage o End of a tenancy

Presumptions: o Presumed to be a chattel where there is no annexation (Holland v Hodgson (1872) o Presumed to be a fixture where there is annexation (Holland v Hodgson (1872)

The presumption in favour of a chattel being a fixture will increase in proportion to the degree of attachment (Spyer v Phillipson (1931)

o The presumption can be rebutted by looking to the intentions of the person who annexed the chattel

Holland v Hodgson (1872)

Facts Owner of land installed looms in a mill by hammering nails into wooden beams

Held Due to the degree of annexation they had become fixtures

Leigh v Taylor (1902)

Facts Life tenant attached valuable tapestries to the walls by mounting them on wooden frames which were then nailed to the

walls Held

The house of lords held that the object of annexation was to enjoy the chattels as chattels not to annex them to the realty

Other factors indicating they remain as chattels included: o They could be removed without causing damage to the walls o Life tenant wouldn’t ordinarily make an improvement to the land they did not own

Re Whaley (1908)

Facts Tapestries affixed to walls through nails (see Leigh v Taylor)

Held Leigh v Taylor was distinguished and tapestries held to be fixtures because:

o They were affixed by the owner – reasonable to assume that they would make improvements to the land o Because the tapestries weren’t only designed to be enjoyed themselves, but also to enhance the Elizabethan

style of the room

Norton v Dashwood (1896)

Facts Tapestries affixed to the wall to a greater degree than Leigh v Taylor

Held Fixtures – because they could not be removed without damaging the brick work and tearing the fabric

Hobson v Gorringe (1897)

Facts The land owner hired a gas engine as part of a hire purchase agreement The gas engine was bolted and cemented into place There was an agreement between the owner of the engine and the land owner which expressly declared that the chattel

would not become the property of the land owner until all installments were paid, and the option to purchase had been exercised

o This complicated the determination of the what the object of annexation was Held

The engine was a fixture because the obvious purpose of attaching the engine was to annex it to the land The ‘chance agreement’ between the parties was not relevant to determining the purpose of annexation The case is further authority of the objective nature of the ‘object of annexation’ test.