The London Borough of Tower Hamlets v The London Borough of Bromley

A chattel placed on land remains a chattel where its annexation is slight and its purpose is to display or enjoy the object rather than permanently improve the land. Property transferred under housing-reorganisation legislation must be connected with the housing function, not merely situated on a housing estate. An authority may acquire title to a chattel under section 3(2) of the Limitation Act 1980 where deliberate acts amount to conversion and the original owner fails to recover possession within six years.

The claimant sought a declaration that it owned Henry Moore’s sculpture Draped Seated Woman, known as Old Flo. The sculpture had been bought by the London County Council and placed on the Stifford Estate. It vested in the Greater London Council when the London County Council was abolished. The estate was later transferred to Tower Hamlets, while the sculpture remained with the Greater London Council. On the Greater London Council’s abolition, the sculpture vested in the London Residuary Body and later Bromley.

The issues were whether the sculpture had passed to Tower Hamlets with the estate, whether it passed under section 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925, and whether Tower Hamlets’ subsequent dealings extinguished Bromley’s title by conversion and limitation.

1. Chattel and original acquisition. The sculpture remained a chattel. Applying the tests of method and degree of annexation, and object and purpose of annexation, it rested by its own weight, could be removed without damage, was complete in itself and was not integral to the estate’s design. It was acquired by the London County Council under its arts function, specifically section 157 of the Local Government Act 1939, rather than under its housing function.
2. Transfer with the estate. The phrase “held in connection with” in section 23 of the London Government Act 1963 had to be read in statutory context. The relevant connection was functional. Personal property had to be connected with the discharge of the housing function under the Housing Act 1957. The sculpture was held in connection with the arts education programme, not the housing function, despite its location on the estate.
3. Estate amenity and section 62. “Estate amenities” in article 2(2) of the 1981 Order formed part of the property capable of transfer under the 1963 Act; they did not create an independent category. The sculpture was not an estate amenity within that scheme and was not a fixture or reputed appurtenance passing under section 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925.
4. Subsequent vesting. The sculpture vested in the London Residuary Body on 1 April 1986 as residuary property under the Local Government Act 1985, and later vested in Bromley under the 1996 Order.
5. Conversion and limitation. Tower Hamlets’ removal of the sculpture, contractual loan, restoration arrangements, control over work, insurance arrangements and deliberate failure to return it were assertions of dominion inconsistent with Bromley’s ownership. They amounted to conversion even without knowledge that another authority owned the sculpture. Under sections 2 and 3(2) of the Limitation Act 1980, Bromley’s failure to recover possession within six years extinguished its title. Judgment was given for Tower Hamlets. Costs were reserved.