Part 1: Critical Legal Advice
A. Co-Ownership
The aforementioned situation focuses on ownership issues, taking into account both legal and equitable interests
in the purchased property.
The first issue is whether co-ownership is present.
Co-ownership is a legal arrangement where the key criteria is unity of possession, ensuring that each owner has
the right to hold and use the property1. In this case, the term "joint tenants in equity" refers to the students hold
joint tenancy, indicating equal and undivided ownership. This confirms co-ownership as unity of possession
exists.
The second issue to consider is that there are five co-owners, which exceeds the statutory limit.
According to section 34(2) of the law of property act (LPA) 19252, there can only be four lawful co-owners. If
there are more than four, only the first four identified full-age individuals in the conveyance will be recognised as
legal co-owners, also known as trustees. Furthermore, only trustees will be able to sell, mortgage, or lease the
property.
In this case, Epsilon and Gamma, being 18, are competent to be trustees, as the other three are underage.
Third issue to consider is whether it is joint tenancy or tenancy in common.
Four unities are necessary for joint tenancy to occur; if not, tenancy in common is used instead3.
In this case, since no precise details are given regarding the unity of title it is unclear whether there are four
unities. It may therefore be tenancy in common. But, the deed drafted had this phrase: “to Alpha, Beta, Gamma,
Delta and Epsilon as joint tenants in equity” which signifies the five friends shared tenancy in equity.
Fourth issue to consider is that, even if the five owners paid varying amounts to the transaction, they will all
benefit equally from the future sale.
Even when contributions are unequal, shared tenancy in equity distributes benefits equally4.
In this case, The agreement mentions joint tenants in equity, which ensures that all members receive equal
benefits despite their different contributions.
In conclusion The equitable interests may become important if there is a future disagreement or if the property is
sold, as the distribution of profits will most likely reflect these varying contributions.
B. Fixtures and Fittings
The aforementioned problem revolves around the status of the objects stated and whether the person selling
them was authorised to take them away.
The first issue is Whether these (ornamental fireplaces, glass chandeliers, stained glass windows, statues, plant
pots, gym equipment, and jacuzzi) qualify as fixtures or chattels.
The case of Holland and Hodgson (1872)5 is a prominent case that explored the differences between chattels and
fixtures.
The case of Leigh v Taylor (1902) 6 defines chattels as movable personal property and fixtures as fittings linked to
actual properties. It also assesses the degree of annexation.
According to the case of Holland and Hodgson (1872)7 there are 2 test which classify elements as fixtures or
chattels, the first Test: Degree of Annexation and second Test: Purpose of Annexation.
1
<Co-Ownership | (lawexplores.com)>
2
Law of Property Act 1925, s 34(2)
3
Victoria Sayles, Land Law Concentrate (8th edn, OUP 2022).
4
Chris Bevan, Land Law (3rd edn, OUP 2022) ch 5.
5
Holland v Hodgson (1871) 72 LR 7 CP 328
6
Leigh v Taylor [1902] AC 157.
7
Holland v Hodgson (1871) 72 LR 7 CP 328
In this case, The provided brief lacks details regarding the permanent attachment of pieces such as the
ornamental fireplaces, glass chandeliers, stained glass windows, statues, plant pots, gym equipment, and jacuzzi.
The stated brief does not specify the permanence of connection for elements such as the decorative fireplace,
glass chandeliers, stained glass windows, statues, plant pots, gym equipment, and Jacuzzi. However, according to
the case of Hellawell v Eastwood (1851)8 if these elements are easily removable without causing property
damage they tend towards chattel and if these elements are permanently attached then the case of Holland and
Hodgson's (1871)9 approach proposes classifying them as fixtures.
8
Hellawell v Eastwood (1851) 155 ER 554.
9
Holland v Hodgson (1871) 72 LR 7 CP 328.
