In general, a fitting is any object that is free-standing or hanging which can be removed

at any given time, while a fixture is any portion that is permanently attached to the
ground or to the building.As per the legal maxim‘what is annex to the land becomes a
part of the land’, however,the exact moment that an annexation becomes a part of the
land must be determined properly.Moreover, as per the guidance provided by the
section 62 of the Law of Property Act of 1925, when transferring a plot of land and/or a
building, all fixtures become part of the land and must be transferred with it. But fittings
normally not make part of a land and/or a building unlessclearlyidentified. Complexity in
distinguishinga fixture or a fitting can make dispute when a particular item include in the
sale.Therefore, a two-stage test should be used to identify whether the item is a fixture
or a fitting.

It is crucial to understand which situations represent which concepts.Hellawell v.

Eastwood1andElitestone Ltd v. Morris2 and are the two most significant cases since they
both address the two-stage test to determine whether an annexation is a fixture or a
fitting.First, method and degree of annexation to be considered. If the item is fixed, one
can find how firmly it is fixed and the degree of damage occurs at the time of its
removal. Second, the purpose behind the item annexation should be taken into account.
So, regarding the items placed in the property will be determined on a case-by-case
basis with reference to the concepts identified in the case law along with two-stage test
rule.

(a) A bronze Buddha statue

To find out whether a bronze statue of Buddha that is present in the garden is a fixture
or a fitting, the guidance provided by two-staged test can be used. Emphasis should be
given as the statue is standing by its own weight in the ground since the degree of
annexation is not revealed. But it can be assume that it is to improve the atmosphere of
the garden.In Holland v Hodgson3, the court held that the spinning looms were
considered fixtures because they were anchored to the mill floor and it clearly stated
that a more permanent and less reversible object linked to land is more likely to be
considered a fixture and should be included in the property. This case provide the
guidance to decide placement of an item by attaching to the ground more permanently,
not like a Buddha Statue which is standing by its own weight. Conversely, in Berkley v
Poulett4the court mentioned that large marble statueofa Greek athletestanding on its
own weight, should consider as a fitting5.Furthermore, there are occasions that the court
suggested if something is standing by its own weight, can be considered as a fitting. In

1
[1851] 155 E.R. 554
2
[1997]1 W.L.R. 687
3
[1872] LR 7 CP 328
4
[1977] 1 EGLR 86
5
Berkley v Poulett [1976] EWCA Civ 1 Court of Appeal,<https://e-lawresources.co.uk/Land/Berkley-v-Poulett.php>
accessed on 10 August 2022
Hulme v Brigham6, the court decided that the heavy printing machine unattached to the
ground was a fitting. However, there were times where the decisions of the courts
became confused in similar scenarios. In Hamp v Bygrave7, purpose of annexation was
important to the court in its decisionaccording to the previous statement made by the
seller of the land that the garden ornaments will be deemed fixtures which placed as to
improve the gardenand will pass with the property. In Elitestone Ltd v. Morris8the court
emphasized the purpose of annexure where a wooden house rested on concrete pillars
that cannot be transported without being destroyed cannot be considered a chattel,
therefore,considered as part of the land. As a result, it is obvious that purpose of
annexation make fittings become fixtures and subsequently a part of the land. It was
supported byR v Secretary of State for Wales, ex parte Kennedy 9, as it was held that
free-standingcarillon clock is a fixture applicable to purpose of annexation.
The purposeof putting a Buddha statue in the garden to improve the scene, lead to it
being considered a fixture according to Lord Chesterfield’s Settled Estates10 and Re
Whaley11, which decided that items attached to a room become fixtures if the objective
of their attachment was to make a beautiful room.Also, inD’Eyncourt v Gregory12the
court confirmed that even if an item is not physically affixed to the property or if that
attachment can remove easily, it may still be considered a fixture. Therefore, the
statutes in question in this case determined as fixtures since they were a part of
architectural design13.As opposed to collection of statutes in D’Eyncourt v Gregory14,
concerned bronze Buddha statute might have different purpose as same asTower
Hamlets LBC v Bromley LBC15, in which it was requested of the court to assess the
categorization of an ornamental object resting on its own weight.The statute was
deemed a chattel by the court because it is an object.It supported itself on the ground
and could move without causing damage or taking away from its natural beauty.

In Tower Hamlets LBC v Bromley LBC 16 the court was asked to consider the
classification of an ornamental object that was resting by its own weight. When
categorizing objects, courts typically began by emphasizing that such categorization is
highly evidence-based. After emphasizing this argument, the court determined that the
statue was a chattel, and was always a chattel.

6
[1943] K.B. 152
7
[1983] 266 EG 720
8
[1997]1 W.L.R. 687
9
[1996] 1 PLR 97
10
[1911] 1 Ch 237
11
[1908] 1 Ch 615
12
[1866] LR 3 Eq 382
13
D'Eyncourt v Gregory [1866] LR 3 Eq 382 <http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Land/D'Eyncourt-v-Gregory.php>
accessed on 11th August 2022
14
[1866] LR 3 Eq 382
15
[2015] EWHC 1954 (Ch)
16
[2015] EWHC 1954
By considering the case law which explored two-staged testwith other classifications,
the bronze Buddha statue stays likelya chattel.

(b) A fitted kitchen, which Harris installed and fitted himself. He would
like to disassemble it and use for hisnew house

The concern is to find out whether to kitchen set should include as fixture or fitting.It is
apparent there is a certain amount of annexation because this kitchen set is attached to
the structure of the house in order to keep it solid. Generally, if anything gets annexed, it
is a fixture unless the concerned person can address contrarily. The approach in the
case Holland v Hodgson17is applicable for this situation, therefore, according to Justice
Blackburn, if the purpose of the attachment was to improve the building’s use, then
those attachments turn into fixtures.In Botham v TSB Bank plc18, the court held that the
level of annexation necessary for a part to be regarded as a fixture. As per decision of
this case kitchen units and bathroom fittings were regarded as fixtures since they were
securely attached to the building and in place to allow the appropriate space to be used
for their designated purposes. Though the kitchen fittings attached by the seller himself,
it was placed to make use of the kitchen area.

Elitestone Ltd v. Morris19the court emphasized the purpose of annexure where a

wooden house rested on concrete pillars that cannot be transported without being
destroyed cannot be considered a chattel, therefore,considered as part of the land. As a
result, it is obvious that purpose of annexation make fittings become fixtures and
subsequently a part of the land.
Therefore, the annexation of kitchen fitting was done with the intention of enhancing the
property’s use and was sufficiently annexed to the structure of the building to be a
fixture.

(c) two adjustable bookshelves that are used in the study for Harris’s
extensive book collection, which fitinto metal brackets that are
screwed in the wall

In determining whether the bookshelves are fixtures or fittings, it would be simpler to

return to the two-staged test on chattels and fixtures by answering questions about the
degree and purpose of annexation.

17
[1872] LR 7 CP 328
18
[1997] 73 P & CR D1
19
[1997]1 W.L.R. 687
It reveals that certain annexation is available with the bookshelves attached by the
metal brackets which screwed into the wall. Intention was to use the study room
effectively. Therefore, the degree and purpose of attachment was to use the propertyfor
its designated purpose. A similar situation can be seen in Aircool Installations v British
Telecommunications20, where the installation of air conditioning equipment was held to
be a fixture because it was bolted to and carved into the building's walls. And
bookshelves are very similar to the situation defined in Holland v Hodgson21spinning
looms were considered fixtures because they were anchored to the mill floor to become
a part of land as it is permanently attached to the building structurewhich was less
irreversible.

FurtherinVaudeville Electric Cinema v Muriset22 Cinema chairs screwed to the floor of

the cinema hall were considered fixtures, even though they could be removed
easily without causing much harm. Those were installed to become permanent
items and to allow the building to be used more effectively as a cinema hall.

Therefore, the bookshelves which fit into metal brackets that are screwed in the wall
become fixtures as those were used to make the study room effectively.

(d) a lighting fixture, attached to the ceiling by a chain

The issue is to find out if the light fixture is a fixture or a fitting if it is attached by a chain.
By considering the similar situationsas per Young v Dalgety23it was decided that the
fluorescent light fixtures were fixtures, however in British Economical Lamp Co. v
Empire Mile End24it was decided that lightbulbs were chattels.The degree and way of
the attachment served as the deciding factors in both cases.
If only the first of the two steps of the tests is used, there is a physical element of
attachment that might imply that the lamp shade is a fixture.But this criterion alone
appears not sufficient to decide whether it is a fixture or a fitting. This was proved in
Leigh v Taylor25by emphasizing that annexation alone was insufficient to transform an
object into a fixture.
In Berkley v Poulett26, according to Scarman LJ, more important is the objective of
annexation than the degree of annexation. If something positioned for better enjoyment
as chattels, thentheyconsider as chattels. Accordingly, the lighting fixture was a gift
received and it was hanged to watch it properly and enjoy its beauty. Further as per the
20
[1995] CLY 821
21
[1872] LR 7 CP 328
22
[1923] 2 Ch 74
23
[1987] 1 EGLR 116
24
[1913] 29 TLR 386
25
[1902] AC 157
26
[1977] 1 EGLR 86
decision in Botham v TSB Bank plc27, it was mentioned that the wall or ceiling to which a
light fixture is attached may not be so incorporated to become a fixture, therefore,
lighting fixture considered as fitting.

In British Economical Lamp Co v Empire Mile End 28it was held that although the light
fitting was firmly fastened to the socket, this fastening served solely to facilitate the
lamp’s operation and the lamps continue to be chattels because they are not a
component of the electrical installation of the house.
Accordingly, the lighting fixture attached by a chain stays as a fitting.

(e) a decorative fireplace recently installed in the lounge.

In examining whether the decorative fireplace is annexed to the room is fixture or fitting,
the most important factor to be considered is purpose of annexation. According to
Elitestone Ltd v Morris29Intentions can make an object a chattel: if an item is affixed to a
ground, but the goal of the person who installed it was simply to facilitate enjoyment of
the item rather than to add value to the property. If the use of the item was not required
for the use of the property and the purpose of the use was merely to enjoy using the
item, the item may be considered a chattel. Even if an object is not affixed to a surface,
it can be considered a fixture if it is intended to serve as an irreversible improvement to
the land.
It seems more details are required with regard to the decorative fireplace. Will taking out
the fireplace caused damage to the structure of the building? Is the fire merely an
electric fire that is only connected by electricity, or the house have a chimney that the
fireplace was a part of?
This situation is similar to that Roch LJ’s distinction in Botham & Others v TSB Bank
plc30 which involved with four decorative fireplaces. Gas fire piped fire places were
classed as fittings and therefore, the decorative fireplace installed in Harris’s house
could be considereda fitting. In same way it can be considered a fitting as per Leigh v
Taylor31 that the priceless drawings attached to a room of a grand building may be taken
down without causing the building any structural harmwere fitting regardless their level
of attachment to the house’s walls because of the nature of the items and the reason
they were positioned in that manner were centered on enjoyment. On the other hand,
according to Neville J in Re Whaley32, if the objective of its attachment is to create a
beautiful room as a whole, then an object attached to building but easily movable was a
27
[1997] 73 P & CR D1
28
[1913] 29 TLR 386
29
[1997]1 W.L.R. 687
30
[1997] 73 P & CR D1
31
[1902] AC 157
32
[1908] 1 Ch 615
fixture and if it was a fireplace, which would need to be removed by harming the
structure, it also can be consider a fixture.

D'Eyncourt v Gregory (1866) LR 3 Eq 382 The tapestries were fixtures as they were

integral to the decoration of the room where they attached as wallpaper or
frescos. The statue of lions, the garden seats and vases were also fixtures as they
formed part of the overall architectural design.
R v Secretary of State for Wales, ex parte Kennedy [1996] 1 PLR 97 The free-standing nature
of the clock did not prevent it from being a fixture.

Hamp v Bygrave (1983) 266 EG 720 causing the garden ornaments to be considered fixtures

In contrast Berkley v Poulett[1976] EWCA Civ 1 The paintings were affixed for the better
enjoyment of them as paintings and the statue and sundials were also placed for the better
enjoyment as chattels.