Fixtures and Chattels

Question 1

Definition of Land

Answer 1

s.205(1)(ix) LPA 1925.

Was said that land possession “cajus est solum, ejus est usque ad coelum et ad inferos.” Case law has curtailed the first part (Bernstein of Leigh v Skyviews & General [1977])

Question 2

Two tests to identify a fixture

Answer 2

1) Degree and method of annexation (Berkley v Poulett) (see also Holland v Hodgson)
a. Apply to facts: How firmly is item attached to land? i.e. if attached to soil/securely affixed to land/would cause damage if removed – presumption of fixture. However, this presumption may be rebutted by test 2:
2) Object and purpose of annexation (D’Eyncourt/Leigh v Taylor)
a. D’Eyncourt: if forms part of architectural design of garden/house – fixture (even if free-standing/not firmly fixed)
b. Leigh: Annexation is only way object can serve its function/purpose

Question 3

STEP 4: Cases where objects were categorised as fixtures or chattels:

Answer 3

1) Statue = chattel; plinth = fixture ; sundial = chattel (Berkley v Poulett)
2) Botham v TSB: light fittings, white goods, carpets and curtains all usually chattels
3) Elitestone v Morris: greenhouse & garden shed = chattels, provided capable of being easily dismantled and transferred round garden
4) Berkley Poulett: statue, provided capable of being removed w/o causing damage and not part of architectural design

Question 4

Berkley v Poulett [1976] CofA

Answer 4

Berkley purchases property from the Estate of Earl Poulett. Says that certain items were fixtures and should have passed to him. Scarman cites Leigh v Taylor and says that the test for whether what were originally chattels are now fixtures is:

1) Method and degree of annexation
2) Object and purpose of annexation
Scarman says that the old law preferred the first limb (method and degree). However, now, if the purpose of annexation was for greater enjoyment of the object itself, it may remain a chattel. HELD that the items were chattels (paintings, sundial etc.)

Sun Dial: As sun dial is detached from plinth and small, it is not a fixture but a chattel. Scarman: “an object fixed to realty may yet remain a chattel.”

Pictures: Although fitted into recesses in the paneling of the room, they did not form part of the composite mural and were thus chattels

Statue: Statue was a chattel, very easy to remove from the plinth. The plinth was fixed and sited for architectural importance, therefore a fixture.

Question 5

Botham v TSB Bank [1996] CofA

Answer 5

CofA held that fitted carpets and curtains were not fixtures. Light fittings were also chattels, as were gas fires connected ot the building only be a gas pipe. White goods manufactured to standard sizes and fitted into standard sized holes were held to be chattels, although fitted kitchen units were fixtures.

Question 6

D’Eyncourt v Gregory [1866]

Answer 6

D’Eyncourt v Gregory [1866] – Some freestanding objects fixtures as they were part of the architectural design of the property. Tapestries were fixed into paneling. Portraits, carved kneeling figures, lions at the head of the steps, 16 stone garden seats, all fixtures.

Question 7

Leigh v Taylor [1902]

Answer 7

Certain tapestries were displayed by being stretched over canvas and then tacked to a framework of wood nailed to walls. Tapestries surrounded by moulding. HofL said they never lost their character as chattels. Only way they could be properly displayed.

Question 8

Elitestone v Morris [1997]

Answer 8

Bungalow on blocks; tenants say is a fixture, freehold owners say chattel. HofL – house that is constructed so as to be removable may well be a chattel. A house which cannot be removed at all = fixture

Question 9

Buckland v Butterfield

Answer 9

If an item is securely attached it raises the rebuttable presumption that it is a fixture

Question 10

Dibble v Moore

Answer 10

Removable greenhouse is a chattel

Question 11

Deen v Andrews

Answer 11

Question of whether a greenhouse was a building so as to pass to the purchaser under a contract for the sale of land. Hirst LJ: It was not