Land Law
Introduction
Land Law focuses upon the uses and supply of land. It looks to facilitate how an owner of land may use it
or moderate how others do so; this relationship can develop into ‘interests’ in the land. This module will
examine the different interests that a person may have in land and how the law seeks to resolve conflicts
through statute, common law and equity.
Land law impacts upon many facets of our day-to-day living, it determines: the difference between what
is property and what is land; who owns property in the land; who may have access to land; your rights to
land as a tenant, and; what you can do with your land. Land law is unusual in that you can own it
outright but still be limited in how you can use it. There are many reasons for this such as agreements
reached by a previous owner or because you failed to notice how the land was used when you
purchased it. As such, land law is heavily governed by how your neighbours interact with land and what
you could have been expected to know.
Ultimately, land law is looking to determine what interests there are in the land and therefore what a
person can do with the land. These interests can be impacted depending on whether the land is
registered or not registered. Beyond owning an interest in the land, less obvious interests can also come
in the following forms:
Minor and Overriding interests
Equitable interests
Covenants
Leases & Licenses
Land Law Basics
Fixtures & Chattels
Exam questions in this area almost invariably are about one issue: is the object a fixture or a chattel? The
reason this is the issue is because the answer to that question will lead you to discover whether the item
is part of the land, and thus passes with it.
Throughout this guide, you will see questions (highlighted in red text for convenience). These questions
are ones you may well ask as you go through the guide, and they are intended to help develop and
broaden your understanding of different categories within the case law.
The guide is split into four parts. The first part is an outline on the subject. The second part introduces
the (very important!) two-stage test and introduces surrounding matters that are relevant to the
question of annexation. The third part addresses the issue of the physical degree of annexation. A recap
will follow part three. The fourth part discusses purposes of annexation, and shows how the second
stage of the two-stage test can be more decisive than the first stage. A second recap concludes the
fourth part. A case glossary follows the fourth part, which you can use to quickly revise which case
represents which principle. Because this area of law is very fact-specific, it is very helpful to remember
,which cases are, for example, about light bulbs or kitchen appliances. Finally, you will find a (very brief!)
statute glossary.
Introduction
Outline
As aforementioned, it is important to establish what on land, constitutes a fixture and a chattel. Fixtures
are those goods which belong as part of the land. Chattels are the personal effects of their owner. A
chattel can be removed at any time by their owners, whereas fixtures might or might not be removed
from the land depending on who it is that wishes to remove them.
Apart from s.62 of the Law of Property Act 1925, all guidance comes from case law. So it is important to
know which cases represent which principles. The two most important cases are Elitestone Ltd v
Morris [1997] and Hellawell v Eastwood(1851)155 E.R. 554 as these both discuss the two-stage test.
What are fixtures and chattels?
A fixture is any item that is included as part of a conveyance of land (that is, where land is given from
one party to another, and such an exchange includes all of the rights and obligations over that land)
according to s.62 of the Law of Property Act 1925. This means that when a portion of land is sold and
there is something defined as a fixture within the confines of that land, then that fixture will be owned
by the person who takes ownership of the land as a whole.
By contrast, a chattel is a physical object which is separate from the land, and thus its ownership is
independent of who owns the land. It does not change hands upon a conveyance of land.
“Can you give me an example?”
Example: if a painting is hanging in the property known as Blacklodge, and the painting is regarded as a
chattel, then when Blacklodge is sold, the person who owns the painting does not change: it still belongs
to the person who owned it before the conveyance of land.
Conversely, if an ornate chandelier is hanging in Blacklodge, and that chandelier is regarded as a fixture,
then when Blacklodge is sold, the party to whom it is sold now owns the chandelier. It is no longer
owned by the person who, prior to the sale, owned the land and therefore owned the chandelier.
NOTE: these examples are assuming that the painting is a chattel, and the chandelier is a fixture. This
example does not explain why they are a chattel and fixture respectively. Instead, this example is
designed to show who owns those objects.
Examination Consideration
You should always think about who owns the rights to the object, because exam questions will drive at
this point: who has the right to decide what happens to the physical object? Your answer will be
determined by whether it is a fixture or a chattel.
The Test and Miscellaneous Issues
Two-Stage Test
,The central question comes down to a two-fold test, as devised in Hellawell v Eastwood (1851)155 E.R.
554. In this test, the court must consider:
1. the degree of annexation: the extent to which the item has been attached or annexed to the
property, and
2. the purpose of annexation: the purpose for which the item was attached to the property.
The same test was reiterated and put forward in Elitestone Ltd v Morris [1997] 1 W.L.R. 687 by Lord Lloyd
of Berwick.
In looking at stage 1), we can say that the greater the degree of attachment or annexing is to the
property, the more likely the item is considered to be a fixture. Another way of expressing this point, as
was made clear in Elitestone Ltd v Morris [1997], is that the physical object is a fixture if it merges with
the land.
“How does it merge with the land?”
This merging is determined by either:
the physical bond of the object with the existing land or
(more rarely) its juxtaposition with the land, such that it is so close to the land that it was intended to be
part of the land.
Case in Focus: Elitestone Ltd v Morris [1997] 1 W.L.R. 687
In the case of Elitestone Ltd v Morris [1997] the predecessor of Morris had constructed a wooden
bungalow. It rested on concrete pillars, and the pillars were attached to Elitestone’s land. The structure
could only be used when on the land; removing the bungalow would have required demolition and
reconstruction of the structure. The House of Lords held, unanimously, that the structure was not a
fixture per se, however it must be intended to form part of the land, to have become ‘part and parcel’ of
the land, because of the difficulty of its removal and the magnitude of its affixing to the land. The main
judgment came from Lord Lloyd.
Key points from Elitestone v Morris:
How is the structure affixed to the land? Is it, for example, placed on top of the land, is there something
(pillars, for example) between them?
Is the structure difficult to remove? Would its removal involve damaging the item or the surrounding
land?
If the structure is affixed to the land in such a way that removing the item would damage it or the land
means it is a fixture.
The result of an item being a fixture is that the person who owns it is whomever owns the land. Thus, a
fixture can have a former owner; that is, someone who used to own the land (and thus the fixture), but
now does not own the land, and therefore does not own the fixture. This is such an abiding principle of
fixtures that former owners are prevented from retaining ownership even if they take active steps to do
, so: for example, in Aircool Installations v British Telecommunications [1995] C.L.Y. 821, if the former
owner inserts a retention of title clause into the conveyance of a fixture, such a clause is null and void.
“Can the owner of the land decide to no longer own the fixture?”
Yes, this is possible. But again, only the owner of the land can sever the fixture from the land (for
example, taking down the chandelier at Blacklodge: see the Example at ‘What are fixtures and chattels?’
above). Further, if the owner does not take that step of removing, then upon a conveyance, that physical
object will be conveyed, as part and parcel of the land, to the new owner, and the former owner loses
the right to separate the fixture from the land (Law of Property Act 1925, s.62(1)).
If you want to impress the examiner, you can invoke the Latin phrase quicquid plantatur solo, solo
cedit. It means “whatever is attached to the ground becomes a part of it.” This in essence is how a
physical object comes to be defined as a fixture: it is attached to the land, rather than simply resting on
it.
Academic Commentary:
Michael Haley, ‘The law of fixtures: an unprincipled metamorphosis?’ (1998) Conv. Mar/Apr 137.
In reference to that phrase quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit, Haley argues that actually the phrase
carries little meaning nowadays. Because the court has had to adapt the case law (such as the case
of Hellawell v Eastwood from the 19th century) to modern circumstances rather than apply a modern
statute, Haley says the case law is a ‘mixed bag of tests and evidentiary presumptions.’ There is, argues
Haley, a lack of coherence and certainty. Haley says ‘the interaction between the degree and purpose
rules… is unsatisfactory, unclear and unduly cumbersome.’
Haley therefore recommends that the ‘ancient principles’ ought to be abandoned, and a new statutory
regime be introduced, just as there is for agricultural tenancies. Because otherwise, as in the case
of Botham v TSB Bank plc (1997) 73 P. & C.R. D1, ‘it is… a sad commentary of the present law that it
requires the Court of Appeal to decide whether mundane, household items, such as a sink or cooker, are
fixtures and chattels.’
“Is the owner of the land entitled to the chattel(s) on it?”
As a matter of law, no. The person who owned the chattel which was placed in (close proximity to)
Blacklodge would own that chattel before and after they convey the land to another party. Chattels may
therefore be removed at any time by the owner.
Examination Consideration
In this section we have examined the two-stage test. As a quick refresher, what are the two stages of the
test? Keep going back to the test whenever you are faced with a chattels/fixtures question. In this
instance we have looked briefly at the idea of merging with the land as something which defines fixtures,
and the idea that an object is a fixture if it is difficult to remove without damaging the object.
For bonus points, which Lord in the case of Elitestone recited the two-stage test?
Buyers
