Land, Fixtures & Chattels Flashcards
Holland v. Hodgson (1872) #Twofold test #Loom
The owner of a mill acquired some looms (=device used to weave clothes) for use in the mill and attached them to the floor by way of nails. The mill (i.e. the land) was then mortgaged and then he failed to keep up with repayments, repossessed by the mortgagee.
Held: by virtue of this attachment and despite the fact that they could be easily removed, the looms had become fixtures and therefore passed with the land to the mortgagee.
per Blackburn J:
Degree of Annexation
If “the article in question is no further attached to the land than by its own weight it is generally considered to be a mere chattel”
Conversely, “an article which is affixed to the land even slightly is to be considered as part of the land”
Purpose of Annexation
- “But even in such a case, if the intention is apparent to make the articles part of the land, they do become part of the land: see D’Eyncourt v. Gregory. Thus blocks of stone placed one on the top of another without any mortar or cement for the purpose of forming a dry stone wall would become part of the land, though the same stones, if deposited in a builder’s yard and for convenience sake stacked on the top of each other in the form of a wall, would remain chattels.”
- “On the other hand, an article may be very firmly fixed to the land, and yet the circumstances may be such as to shew that it was never intended to be part of the land, and then it does not become part of the land. The anchor of a large ship must be very firmly fixed in the ground in order to bear the strain of the cable, yet no one could suppose that it became part of the land, even though it should chance that the shipowner was also the owner of the fee of the spot where the anchor was dropped. An anchor similarly fixed in the soil for the purpose of bearing the strain of the chain of a suspension bridge would be part of the land.”
Elitestone Ltd v Morris [1997] #Threefold classification #annexation by gravity #purpose test different from Leigh v Taylor
Issue: whether the bungalow rested on its own weight on concrete pillars and not physically attached to the land a chattel or fixture
Held: part of the land,
- Degree of annexation: But “[a] thing may be as firmly affixed to the land by gravitation as by clamps or cement.”:approved Snedeker v. Warring (1854) 12 NY 170 per Parker J
2. the manner of annexation is significant in that it affects the consideration of whether the object can be removed “without injury to itself or the fabric of the building.” (citing Parke B in Hellawell v. Eastwood (1851) 6 Exch 295)
=> this second point is linked to intention. Because the subject matter in this case is the house itself. The Leigh v Taylor test is about things that are fixed to the house
“It is important to observe that intention in this context is to be assessed objectively and not subjectively. Indeed it may be that the use of the word intention is misleading. It is the purpose which the object is serving which has to be regarded, not the purpose of the person who put it there. The question is whether the object is designed for the use or enjoyment of the land or for the more complete or convenient use or enjoyment of the thing itself.”
- This means that although this “intent” is sometimes referred to as “objective intent”, this is a different creature entirely from the “objective intent” that we encounter in the law of contract.
Berkley v Poulett [1977] #the relationship of the two tests
Scarman LJ remarked: “Today so great are the technical skills of affixing and removing objects to land or buildings that the second test is more likely than the first to be decisive.”
“.. the enduring significance of the first test is a reminder that there must be some degree of physical annexation before a chattel can be treated as part of the realty.”
Hellawell v Eastwood (1851) #purpose of annexation
Elaborating on the test of object of annexation, the court remarked: “whether it was for the permanent and substantial improvement of the dwelling … or merely for a temporary purpose, or the more complete enjoyment and use of it as a chattel.”
Leigh v Taylor [1902] #intrinsic enjoyment
- a number of valuable tapestries were affixed by the life tenant in the drawing room of the mansion house.
- “Strips of wood were placed over the paper which covered the walls, and were fastened by nails to the walls. Canvas was stretched over the strips of wood and nailed to them, and the tapestries were stretched over the canvas and fastened by tacks to it and the pieces of wood. Mouldings, resting on the surface of the wall and fastened to it, were placed round each piece of tapestry.”
- CA (sub nom Re De Falbe [1901] 1 Ch 523) held that the tapestries were a tenant’s fixtures and thus could be removed by her estate. However, HL held that they were chattels as there was no other way they could be enjoyed except by fixing them to the walls.
- The chattel character of such items survives if there was no self-evident intention that they should attach indefinitely and gratis to the realty
D’Eyncourt v Gregory (1866) #integral to landscape or interior design
- statues, figures, vases and stone garden seats were held to have become part of the land because they were essentially part of the design of a house and grounds even though they were merely affixed by their own weight.
- Or if they were part of a general scheme for the improvement of realty
Irene Loong v Pun Tsun-hang [1959] #AC
four “window type” air-conditioners were held to be fixtures even though they were easily removable.
Penta Continental Land Investment Co Ltd v Chung Kwok Restaurant Ltd [1967] #AC
air-conditioners bolted onto frames which rested on their own weight on a roof adjacent to the premises were held not to be fixtures even though the ducts feeding the machine were held to be fixtures.
Orient Leasing (Hong Kong) Ltd v N P Etches [1985] #AC
parts of a central air-conditioning system installed by a developer were held to be fixtures even though the degree of attachment of some parts was slight, and thus subject to the mortgage granted over the land by the developer.
Yu Yiu Kong v Kobylanski [2001] #AC
the court dispensed with “extensive reference to authorities” and concluded that it had “no doubt that the air-conditioning unit in question, a window type air-conditioner, was not a fixture.”
Sunbeam Investment Ltd v Incorporated Owners of Villa Veneto [2010] #AC
the Lands Tribunal appears to suggest that apart from mobile air-conditioners, all other air-conditioners would be fixtures.
