Fixtures And Fittings

Question 1

Looms bolted to the floor of a factory were held to have a sufficiently high degree of annexation that they were considered fixtures

Answer 1

Holland v Hodgson

Question 2

A greenhouse resting on its own weight and not otherwise attached to the land was held to be a mere chattel

Answer 2

Dean v Andrews

Question 3

Chairs attached to the floor were only attached to keep them stable during their temporary usage and were considered chattels

Answer 3

Lyon and Co v London City and Midland Bank

Question 4

Chairs attached to the floor were considered fixtures as the purpose of annexation was to make the property as a whole useable as a cinema

Answer 4

Vaudeville Electric Cinema v Muriset

Question 5

The court considered other factors such as the permanence of an item, the ease with which it could be removed and whether it was installed by a builder or the owner of the property

Answer 5

Botham v TSB

Question 6

A large wooden bungalow that could not be moved without being destroyed, the court applied a “common sense” approach to deciding whether an item was a fixture or a fitting

Answer 6

Elitestone v Morris

Question 7

A man constructed a “perfect specimen of an Elizabethan home”. Part of this was a large tapestry that hung on one of the walls. Tapestry held to be a fixture. The tapestry was not mentioned under chattels in the Will, it was part of making the house look Elizabethan and was cut to fit.

Answer 7

Re Whaley

Question 8

Wild animals maybe considered no to be owned by anyone, so cannot necessarily be removed from the land on sale. Domesticated animals are, taking the “common sense approach”, clearly personalty and continue to be owned by the seller. (Could also argue they are not attached in any way to the land)

Answer 8

Blades v Higgs