Dispute as to ownership of fish in fishing lake on its sale, and whether solar panels were fixtures. The fish had been purchased for the fishery. Small fish might escape through meshes, but larger fish were captive. The contract of sale of the land had not made explicit provision. The buyer asserted that the process of enclosing the fish created a qualified property per industrial in the fish.
Held: The claim succeeded ut only in part. Fish in their nature and even if held captured were wild animals and not capable of being subject to absolute property rights, though a qualified right could be asserted whilst they were held captive. That qualified property had not been assigned by the contract. Therefore the claimant had a possessory title on which it could found its conversion claim.
As to the solar panels, they were fixtures, and had passed with the contract.
Judges:
Hodge QC HHJ
Citations:
[2019] EWHC 2272 (Ch), [2020] 1 WLR 559, [2019] WLR(D) 626
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Greyes Case 1593
Grey brought an action of trespasse against Bartholmew : the case was : A man did purchase divers fishes, viz. carpes, tenches, trouts, Be. arid put them into his pond for store, and then died.
The question was, whether the heire or the . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Borwick Development Solutions Ltd v Clear Water Fisheries Ltd CA 1-May-2020
Only Limited Ownership of pond fish
BDS owned land with closed fishing ponds. They sold the land to the respondents, but then claimed that the fish, of substantial value, were not included in the contract. The court as asked whether the captive fish were animals ferae naturae or . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Torts – Other, Land, Animals
Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.640880