Deen v Andrews: 1986

Land was sold. The parties disputed whether a greenhouse was included.
Held: It was a large greenhouse consisting of a sectional frame bolted to a large concrete base. ‘Building’ was to be given the meaning ascribed by s62 of the 1925 Act. The greenhouse was not sufficiently affixed but rested by its own weight on the land.


Hirst J


[1986] 1 EGLR 262, (1986) 52 PandCR 17


Law of Property Act 1925


CitedHolland v Hodgson 1872
(Court of Exchequer Chamber) Blackburn J set out what constituted a fixture: ‘There is no doubt that the general maxim of the law is, that what is annexed to the land becomes part of the land; but it is very difficult, if not impossible, to say with . .
FollowedH E Dibble v Moore CA 1969
A greenhouse was not an ‘erection’ within section 62(1). Megaw LJ noted that it was customary to move the greenhouse every few years, . .

Cited by:

CitedElitestone Ltd v Morris and Another HL 1-May-1997
The plaintiff acquired land on which 27 chalets were erected. They served notice to quit so that the site could be developed. The defendants argued that they had residential tenancies with protection under the Rent Act 1977.
Held: The tenants’ . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.240407