Auteur
Stephen Burke

Stephen Burke

Collaborateur senior

Read More
Auteur
Stephen Burke

Stephen Burke

Collaborateur senior

Read More

7 octobre 2021

RED alert - Autumn 2021 – 6 de 7 Publications

Serpentine Boathouse: Fixture of Hyde Park?

  • Quick read

The Royal Parks Ltd and another v Bluebird Boats Ltd [2021] EWHC 2278 (TCC)

Summary

The High Court held that the operator of boating facilities had no right to remove a boathouse constructed by it when its concession contract expired, as it formed part of the land.

The facts

In 1998, Bluebird Boats were granted a concession to operate a boating service on the Serpentine lake in Hyde Park.  A few years later, the royal park management company (the Royal Park) decided to re-tender the concession so as to provide enhanced facilities and this process made clear that the successful applicant would be required to replace the boathouse and jetty at their own cost.

Bluebird Boats won the tender and the concession contract granted them a licence to occupy the park premises.  The contract expired in 2020 and was not renewed.

Bluebird Boats wanted to dismantle and remove the boathouse so that it could be reassembled for use in other parks whereas the Royal Park disputed its ability to do so.  The latter brought proceedings for a declaration to determine the matter.

The arguments

Bluebird Boats argued that the boathouse was a chattel and not a fixture and that, consequentially, it retained ownership of it.  It alternatively argued that the boathouse was designed so that it could be assembled in parts at the lakeside and subsequently dismantled and was a substantial capital investment to be removeable in the event the concession ended.  As a result, the Royal Park should be estopped from denying Bluebird Boats' ownership of the parts of the boathouse that could be removed.

The Royal Park argued that the boathouse was a part of Hyde Park as it was constructed to form part of the land.

High Court's decision

The High Court held that:

  • the boathouse comprised both the superstructure and substructure of the building and was constructed to be permanent and immobile
  • the boathouse formed part of the land because it was permanently fixed to it, its purpose was to permanently improve Hyde Park and its removal would result in substantial destruction
  • Bluebird Boats had no proprietary or contractual right to remove any part of the boathouse
  • the Royal Park was not estopped from denying Bluebird Boats' ownership because, inter alia, there was no evidence that they had expressly or impliedly encouraged Bluebird Boats to believe it would retain ownership of the boathouse once constructed.

A declaration was made in favour of the Royal Park with the consequence being that the boathouse belongs to the Royal Park and will remain in Hyde Park following expiry of the concession.

Our comment

Whilst the legal tests were applied in their usual way here, these are a novel set of facts and demonstrate the importance of parties understanding the impact of contractual obligations when agreements come to an end.

Given the complexities surrounding whether certain structures are chattels or fixtures, we recommend that legal advice is sought if you are negotiating agreements relating to the occupation of land or dealing with dilapidations liabilities.

Call To Action Arrow Image

Latest insights in your inbox

Subscribe to newsletters on topics relevant to you.

Subscribe
Subscribe

Related Insights

Litiges immobiliers

Comments from Counsel: lack of co-ownership clarity can be Fattal

8 juillet 2022
In-depth analysis

par Stephen Burke

Cliquer ici pour en savoir plus
Immobilier et construction

Neighbourly conduct: love thy neighbour (and grant them access)

8 avril 2022
Briefing

par Stephen Burke

Cliquer ici pour en savoir plus
Immobilier et construction

Commercial rent arrears: options to landlords following lifting of moratorium

30 mars 2022

par plusieurs auteurs

Cliquer ici pour en savoir plus