Chelsea Yacht & Boat Company Limited v Pope

A houseboat remains a chattel unless it has become part of the land by annexation. The question is determined objectively by the degree and object of annexation. Contractual terms, intended residential use and the fact that the structure is a person’s home are relevant only so far as they illuminate those factors. Where a houseboat is secured by detachable ropes and service connections, can be moved without injury, and is intended to be moved when necessary, it is not sufficiently annexed to the land. The Housing Act 1988 therefore does not apply to an agreement for its letting.

Chelsea Yacht & Boat Company Limited appealed from a preliminary ruling by His Honour Judge Cotran in the West London County Court. The court below held that an agreement under which Justin Pope occupied a houseboat was a tenancy governed by the Housing Act 1988.

The appellants argued that the houseboat was a chattel and therefore incapable of being the subject of a tenancy of land. The Court of Appeal heard argument only on that issue. The central question was whether the houseboat had become part of the land by annexation.

1. Appeal allowed. The agreement was not governed by the Housing Act 1988, because the houseboat had not become part of the land. The question whether it was a dwelling house therefore did not arise.
2. The binding principles were those in Elitestone Limited v Morris [1997] 1 WLR 687, approving the test in Holland v Hodgson [1872] LR 7 CP 328. The court had to assess objectively both the degree and the object of annexation.
3. The houseboat was secured by ropes to the river wall, an anchor and pontoons, and connected to services. Those attachments could be undone without undue effort, allowing the boat to be towed away without injury to itself or the land. Its inability to move under its own power was immaterial.
4. The agreement contemplated movement of the boat, including dry-docking for repairs. That substantially weakened any argument based on permanence. The attachments served to prevent movement by tide or weather and to provide services, rather than to make the boat part of the land.
5. The fact that the boat was fitted out and moored as a home did not alter the result. Residential use did not necessitate annexation. The reasoning below had failed to apply the correct test and had treated contractual terms, permanent immobility and residential letting as determinative.
6. An order for possession within 28 days was made. A stay was refused on the claimants’ undertakings concerning repairs, possible further relief and re-entry if the House of Lords later determined that the Court of Appeal was wrong. The appeal was allowed with costs, subject to leave for enforcement.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) [2000] EWCA Civ 425: allowed the appeal, answered the preliminary question in the negative and ordered possession within 28 days.
• West London County Court: His Honour Judge Cotran held that the agreement was a tenancy governed by the Housing Act 1988.