Fixtures, Fittings and Chattels

Question 1

Why is the law of fixtures and chattels relevant? think about sellers and buyers; mortgages and repossessions

Answer 1

-a new owner will want to argue that items are fittings, hence part of the property- increase in value, similarly banks
-The seller will want to argue that the items are chattels so they can remove

Question 2

banks do not want to repossess houses that are stripped apart

Answer 2

Lloyds TSB v Botham [1996]- luxury in Chelsea

Question 3

litigation over fish in a pond

Answer 3

Borwick Development Solutions Ltd v Clear Water Fishing Ltd [2020]

Question 4

the 2 overlapping tests for is it a fixtures

Answer 4

the degree of annexation
the purpose of annexation

Question 5

which case in a way ‘granted superiority’ to the purpose test over that of degree

Answer 5

Elitestone v Morris- wooden shacks were regarded as fixtures although not concreted

Question 6

compare the tapestries cases

Answer 6

Leigh v Taylor [1902]- chattels in a modest house; Re Whaley [1908]- fixtures, part of a special room

Question 7

statute cases compare and contrast

Answer 7

Berkley v poulet [1976]- chattels- it weighed over half a tonne lol;
D’Eyncourt v Gregory [1866]- fixtures part of an architectural garden

Question 8

general rule about objects found on the ground

Answer 8

finder is entitled to possess it against all but the rightful owner- Armory v Delamirie [1722]

Question 9

relatively modern case law on operation of relativity of title in the finder principle

Answer 9

Parker v British Airways [1982]-if the owner of property exercises a sufficient degree of control they stand at the top of the hierarchy- have the most legitimate claim to ownership of chattels, otherwise the finder of a lost item has the best interest and can keep it

Question 10

what is the general rule about objects buried in the ground

Answer 10

the landowner has the superior title to the object on the basis that the object forms part of the land

Question 11

case law on objects found underground clue: metal detectorist

Answer 11

Waverley Borough Council v Fletcher

Question 12

why does the law need reform?

Answer 12

• inconsistent and conflicting case law
  -complex and arbitrary analytical factors
  -the concept of architectural design
  -lingering uncertainty as to the role of intention

Question 13

inconsistency in application of tests- why on earth were these things held to be chattels?

Answer 13

Hulme v Brigham- printing machines weighing 9-12tonnes
Fahtsone Ltd [2015]- enormous computer with 54 bolts into the floor

Question 14

contrasting case to Berkley- erratic and unpredictable nature

Answer 14

Hamp v Bygrave- garden ornaments held to be fixtures;

Question 15

houseboat with water and electricity supply was held to be a chattel

Answer 15

Chelsea Yacht v Pope [2000]

Question 16

the issue of ‘subjective intention’- contradictions

Answer 16

subjective intention of the parties should not affect the question- Melluish; yet in D’Eyncort/Kennedy/Re Whaley the finding of architectural design did involve examining subjective intention

Question 17

new proposed framework for the law

Answer 17

rebuttable presumption that everything is a chattel

Question 18

how would the new rebuttable presumption be challenged- 2 gronds?

Answer 18

1- the court sees it as unreasonable and inequitable to allow the removal
2-adducing evidence of agreement of ownership of item between parties

Question 19

D’Eyncourt is not a great decision- cases

Answer 19

Re De Falbe; Megarry & Wade

Question 20

case which applied the approach in Elitestone

Answer 20

Spielplatz Ltd v Pearson[2015]