Elitestone Ltd v Morris [1997] 1 WLR 687 (HL)

Facts

  • Elitestone Ltd was the freeholder of land on which Mr. Morris occupied a bungalow.
  • Morris paid an annual fee to Elitestone Ltd for his occupation.
  • Elitestone sought to remove Morris from the land.
  • Morris claimed protected tenancy under the Rent Act 1977, which would prevent his removal except under specific conditions.
  • The dispute hinged on whether the bungalow was a chattel (movable and not part of the land) or a fixture (attached to the land and part of the real property).
  • The bungalow rested on concrete blocks attached to the land but was not itself fixed directly to these blocks.
  • The court had to determine whether the construction and purpose of the bungalow made it part of the land.

Issues

  1. Whether the bungalow was a chattel or a fixture for property law purposes.
  2. Whether Morris was entitled to tenancy protection under the Rent Act 1977 as an occupant of a dwelling considered part of the land.
  3. What legal test should be applied to determine the status of the bungalow.

Decision

  • The House of Lords held the bungalow was a fixture and part of the real property.
  • The court applied a two-stage test: (1) assessing the degree of annexation and (2) considering the purpose for which the bungalow was placed on the land.
  • It was found that the bungalow, though not directly fixed to the concrete blocks, could only be removed by demolition, demonstrating a high degree of annexation.
  • The court determined the bungalow was intended to serve as a permanent residence, for the use and enjoyment of the land rather than as a movable object.
  • As a result, Morris was entitled to the protections granted by the Rent Act 1977.

Legal Principles

  • The two-stage test for determining chattel versus fixture involves examining both the degree of physical annexation and the object's intended purpose.
  • Structures that can only be enjoyed in situ and cannot be removed intact are strongly inferred to be fixtures.
  • The intention behind placing the object on the land must be assessed objectively, focusing on the purpose served by the thing itself, not merely the purpose of the person placing it.
  • Legal status under property law depends on the degree of attachment and permanence of the object with the land.

Conclusion

The House of Lords established that an object, such as a bungalow, which is intended to serve as a permanent part of the land and cannot be removed without demolition, qualifies as a fixture. This resulted in Morris receiving tenancy protection under the Rent Act 1977, and the case clarified the objective test for distinguishing fixtures from chattels in property law.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal