Summary How to answer whether an object is a fixture or chattel
18 views 1 purchase
Course
Land Law (LNW)
Institution
University Of Law (ULaw)
How to answer whether an object is a fixture or chattel. Provides a list of case law for different objects. Includes an example answer. The structure that should be followed to answer this question and the tests that should be applied.
s 205(1)(ix) of the Law of Property Act 1925- definition of land.-
‘land’ will include the land itself, all buildings (or parts of buildings) (the manor house, the stable
block and the garage) and mines and minerals (the coal). Also within the definition are the manor,
the advowson, the right of way (an example of an easement) and the fishing rights (a ‘right, privilege,
or benefit’). The Range Rover and the horses are examples of movable property and are not within
the definition. Jason will acquire everything within the legal definition of land, that is, everything
other than the Range Rover and the horses. (Note that although coal is included in the definition of
land, in practice, all interests in coal are now vested in the Coal Authority under the Coal Industry Act
1994.)
However, case law has curtailed the first part of this rule Bernstein of Leigh (Baron) v Skyviews &
General Ltd [1977] 3 WLR 136.- In the Bernstein case it was held that the landowner’s claim to
airspace should be restricted to such height as is necessary for them to enjoy in an ordinary way
the land that they own and the structures that are placed upon it. Beyond that they have no more
of a claim to airspace than any other member of the public.
This concerns chattels that become attached to land. A chattel is an item of movable property (such
as furniture, pictures, books, a motor car) as opposed to land, which is immovable. If you attach a
chattel to land it may cease to be a chattel and become what is known as a fixture.
Is it mentioned in the contract?
Assuming the contract for sale is silent on whether the ITEMS are included in the sale, whether or
not they automatically pass with the land depends on whether they are classified as fixtures (which
form part of the land) or chattels which would allow their removal. It is only where the contract is
silent on the matter that it is necessary to consider the position using the common law rules.
Applying the above to the facts, the statues are freestanding, so this raises the rebuttable
presumption that they are chattels - see Berkley v Poulett. However, the fact that they are in a
landscaped garden means that it might be possible to argue that they are part of the general
architectural design and that they were put there to permanently improve the land – see D’Eyncourt
v Gregory, in which case they would be fixtures and Hasan can ask for their return.
The taps are probably quite securely attached. In Botham v TSB Bank plc, taps were held to be
fixtures because of the high degree of annexation and because they are necessary for a room to be
used as a bathroom. Viewed objectively, they are likely to be seen as permanent improvements to
the property (and therefore fixtures) so Hasan can ask for their return.
Fixtures or Chattels?
, Whether or not Julian is entitled to remove the items depends on whether they are fixtures or
chattels. If chattels, he can remove them; if fixtures, he cannot remove them as they are part of the
land.
There are two tests which must be applied to determine whether an item is a fixture or a chattel -
the degree of annexation test (which looks at whether an item is attached to the land or the
buildings on the land) and the object/purpose of annexation test (which looks at the reason it was
placed there - was it objectively speaking intended to permanently improve the land?) – see Berkley
v Poulett. The purpose of annexation test is the definitive test. If an item is attached, this raises the
rebuttable presumption that it is a fixture. Freestanding items are rebuttably presumed to be chattels
- see Berkley v Poulett. However, either of these presumptions is rebutted by contrary evidence as to
whether the object was intended as a permanent addition to the land - see Leigh v Taylor,
D’Eyncourt v Gregory.
To decide, you should first explain the tests (referred to by Scarman LJ in Berkley v Poulett) of:
Degree of annexation – To what degree was the item attached to the land?
If securely attached to the land the presumption is that the item is a fixture.
If free-standing the presumption is that the item is a chattel.
Purpose of annexation – What was the object or purpose of the annexation of the item to the
land? Was it intended to be a permanent improvement – viewed objectively - if so it is a fixture, or
was it intended to be temporary and merely annexed to the land to be enjoyed in its own right and
therefore a chattel? This is the conclusive test.
You should then apply the tests to the items in the question. It is not essential that your conclusions
are the same as those below. What is important is that you have explained the tests, applied them
and come to a sensible conclusion based on your application of the law.
e.g.(i) Stone sundial standing on plinth incorporated into the patio
-Degree of annexation strong as regards the plinth but the actual sundial appears to be resting on the
plinth so attachment of that is not high.
-Purpose of annexation for plinth appears to be part of the design of the patio so likely to be a
fixture, applying Berkley v Poulett and D’Eyncourt v Gregory. If the sundial is not part of the design
and is more a matter of personal taste then that will be a chattel (see the removable statues on
plinths in Berkley v Poulett).
Conclusion: Depending on the facts, the seller can probably take the sundial but not the plinth.
(ii) Shelves attached by brackets
-Degree of annexation is high (will cause damage on removal, although repairable damage would not
necessarily prevent an item being classed as achattel)._
-Purpose of annexation - probably part of layout of the room and/or improvement of the property.
Shelves have to be fixed to be usable.
Conclusion: the seller probably cannot take the shelves.
(iii) Washing machine
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller alicewhelan99. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $9.71. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
