As more and more accommodation, residential and otherwise, comes to be assembled rather than built on site, problems are bound to arise as to whether the occupier has acquired or assumed a particular statutory benefit or obligation.
Equally useful, on the first question, is Sandi Murdoch’s reminder (recalling the chalet bungalow considered by the House of Lords in Elitestone Ltd v Morris [1997] 2 EGLR 115) that the test for deciding whether the item has become part and parcel of the land is somewhat more intuitive than the test applied in disputes over alleged fixtures.
As more and more accommodation, residential and otherwise, comes to be assembled rather than built on site, problems are bound to arise as to whether the occupier has acquired or assumed a particular statutory benefit or obligation. No houseroom to boats Estates Gazette 17 June 2000, p166, reviews the case of Chelsea Yacht & Boat Co Ltd v Pope[2000] 2 EGLR 23, which emphasises that the question of whether the accommodation can be the subject matter of a tenancy has to be kept quite distinct from the question of whether it can be described as a dwelling-house, office, or whatever.
Equally useful, on the first question, is Sandi Murdoch’s reminder (recalling the chalet bungalow considered by the House of Lords in Elitestone Ltd v Morris [1997] 2 EGLR 115) that the test for deciding whether the item has become part and parcel of the land is somewhat more intuitive than the test applied in disputes over alleged fixtures.
