FIXTURES AND CHATTELS

WHAT IS LAND?

1. What is Land?

 Section 205 (1)(ix) Law of Property Act 1925 contains a definition of “land”,
which includes:

i. Tangible

 Surface, subsoil, minerals etc underneath

 Buildings and parts of buildings
 Things attached to buildings: fixture/ chattel?
 Airspace

ii. intangible

 Right to cross someone else’s land (easement)

 Right to restrict what someone can do on their land (restrictive
covenant).

Bernstein of Leigh (Baron) v Skyviews & General

Facts

 The claimant had a freehold title to a country house.

 The defendant company was a company that specialised in aerial photography.

 It used to take aerial photographs of land and sell them to the landowners.

 The defendant company flew over the house and took photographs, which the
company later offered to sell the claimant.

 The claimant strongly objected to having his house photographed without his consent
though.

 He brought an action in trespass against the defendant company, on the grounds that it
had invaded the airspace above his house without his consent.

Decision

 It was agreed that certainly the defendant company had flown directly above the
claimant’s land.

 However, it was said this did not give rise to any action in trespass because an
intrusion into airspace at that height did not qualify as trespass at common law.

 To succeed in a claim in trespass at common law, the claimant needed to show that
the defendant company had interfered with land in his possession.

 The disputed question was whether the right of landowners to possess the airspace
above the physical surface of their land extended far enough to capture the flight path
of the aircraft.

 The defendant company argued the claimants right could not extend infinitely up into
space.
  It was argued by the defendant that a landowner’s entitlement to possess airspace
should extend only to a height necessary for the full enjoyment of the land.

 Yet, the claimant argued for the traditional maxim to be applied (that possession of
land “extends upward to infinity and downwards to the centre of the earth”), but the
judge refused to apply this maxim.

 The judge described the literal application of the traditional maxim as being absurd
because every time a satellite passes over a garden there would be a trespass at
common law then.

 The judge held, instead, that an owner had rights in the airspace above their land “to
such height as is necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of his land and
the structures upon it”.

 The claimants ordinary use and enjoyment of his land was in no way affected by the
flight of the aircraft hundreds of feet above the land.

 No trespass had been committed by flying above the land at this height.

Comment

 A balance had to be struck between owners’ rights to use their land and the rights “of
the general public to take advantage of all that science now offers in the use of air
space”.

 The best way in which to strike that balance was to reject the traditional maxim, as far
as airspace was concerned, and to enable the landowner to control airspace only to the
extent needed to support the ordinary use of the land.

2. Fixtures are Part of the Land

  A fixture is an item that has been brought onto the land but is treated as
forming a part of the land.

 A chattel is an item that has been brought onto the land but which is not
treated as forming a part of the land.

 The practical effect is that a transfer will take fixtures with it.

 Title to the fixture passes automatically with title to the land.

 Title to a chattel, by contrast, does not pass with a transfer of title to the land;
it remains in the same ownership as before

The degree of annexation test is the principal test and should always be applied first.
This test looks at the level of physical attachment of the object to the land.
 The purpose of annexation test should be applied wherever the degree of annexation
is insufficient. This looks at the reason for the placing of the item on the land.

Degree of annexation

One needs to know the extent of the physical attachment of any given object to the
land.

The more firmly or permanently the object’s attachment to the land, the more likely it
is to be a fixture.

Generally, if detaching the object from the land would mean either having to destroy
the object itself or significantly damage the property to which it is attached, then it will be a
fixture.

Holland v Hodgson

Facts: The owner of a mill purchased some looms for use in his mill. They were attached to
the stone floor by bolts driven into wooden beams. They could quite easily be removed. The
question for the court was whether the looms were fixtures forming part of the land or
whether they remained chattels.

Held: The looms had become fixtures. Blackburn J something “which is affixed to the land
even slightly is to be considered as part of the land”.

Note: In a problem question scenario, compare the facts given to those in Holland v Hodgson
to help decide whether or not the object in question is a fixture under the degree of
annexation test. Ask yourself whether the item is attached to the land or simply resting on its
own weight (if the item is resting on its own weight it is likely to be a chattel).

On the other hand, if the object is simply resting on the land by virtue of its own
weight, it will not be considered a fixture.

Hulme v Brigham

Facts: heaving printing machinery resting on its own weight on the floor of a printing press
was held to be a chattel only.

However, note …

Elitestone v Morris

Ratio: A wooden bungalow resting on concrete pillars was considered a fixture.

Application: the key here is that the bungalow would have to be dismantled in order to move
it. Therefore, it was held to be a fixture even though it was not technically attached to the
land. Essentially, if the structure cannot be moved without destroying it, it is likely to be a
fixture, even if it is not physically attached.
Purpose of annexation

Having first applied the degree of annexation test and shown that the object you are
testing is not sufficiently attached to the land to make it a fixture, it may nevertheless be
possible to show that the object is a fixture by applying the purpose of annexation test.

The focus of the purpose of annexation test is not on the physical attachment of the
objects to the land; rather it looks at the motivation behind the placement of the object in its
setting.

If it can be show that the object was placed on the land with the intention that it
should become a permanent addition to the land, then it will be deemed a fixture.
 D’Eyncourt v Gregory

Facts: a stone garden seat and large marble statutes of lions were placed at certain points
around the landowner's garden.

Held: The placing of the statutes in particular locations within the garden clearly showed the
landowners intention that they would form a permanent part of the garden design. Therefore,
they were fixtures rather than chattels despite their not being in any way attached to the land.

Application: in a problem question compare the facts given to those in Berkley v Poulett to
help decide whether or not the object in question is a chattel. Ask yourself whether the
placement of the objects is purely for their enjoyment as individual items or as part of a larger
scheme or design.

On the other hand, if it can be shown that the object was placed on the land merely for
convenience, or for the purpose of creating some kind of temporary improvement or look,
then it will be deemed a chattel.

This means that a single stone statute in a garden, if placed randomly and resting on
its own weight, would not become a fixture; but if the same statue was made the focal point
of a garden design, it could easily be construed as a fixture under the purpose of annexation
test.
 Berkely v Poulett

Ratio: a statute and sundial resting on their own weight in a garden were held to be chattels.
The court held that their placement within the garden was simply to enjoy the object for their
individual aesthetic value and not as part of an overall garden design. Though the plinth was
held to be a fixture.

Application: in a problem question compare the facts you are given to those in D’Eyncourt v
Gregory to help decide whether or not the object in question is a chattel. Ask yourself
whether the placement of the objects is purely for their enjoyment as individual items or as
part of a larger scheme or design.

Because of the priority given to the purpose of annexation test over the degree of
annexation test, it is possible that an object which is very firmly attached to the land and as
such would be considered a fixture under the degree of annexation test, may nevertheless be
deemed a chattel if the reason for attaching it to the land is simply to enable the owner to
better enjoy the object as a chattel.

Leigh v Taylor.

Facts: Tapestries tacked to the wall in a building were held to be chattels and not fixtures, and
so had not become part of the land in question.

Application: Use this case where the facts show the level of attachment of the object is
overridden by the purpose for doing so. Remember that the only way in which the tapestries
could be viewed and enjoyed was by tacking them to the wall. It was not the intention of the
property owner in doing this to make them a permanent fixture of the land.
 Botham v TSB Bank.

Facts: the question arose as to whether certain objects in the claimant’s flat were fixtures or
chattels. The items were: fitted carpets, light fittings, gas fires, curtains and blinds, bathroom
fittings, kitchen units and white goods.

Held: Applying first the degree and then the purpose of annexation tests, the court decided
that bathroom fittings and build-in kitchen units were fixtures. The rest of the items were
chattels, i.e. fitted carpets, curtains and blinds, light fittings, and gas fires.

Application: use the examples given here to help decide whether or not the object in question
is a fixture or a chattel.

Can a building ever be a chattel?

Elitestone v Morris

Facts: a bungalow rested on concrete foundation blocks set into the ground.

Held: the bungalow was deemed to be a fixture. The court said a house that is constructed so
as to be removable, whether as a unit or in sections, may well remain a chattel. A house
which is constructed in such a way that it cannot be removed at all, other than by destruction,
cannot have been intended to remain as a chattel.