Fixtures and Chattels
The 3 categories: Chattel, fixture and part and parcel of the land
- An item on land may be classified under one of three broad categories
Chattel
o Personal property and not part of the land
o Item of movable, personal property
o Eg: clothes, rugs, beds and paintings
Fixture
o part of the land
o Is a chattel that is attached to a parcel of land and becomes part of the land
itself
o Built-in furniture and integrated work surfaces, fireplaces
o Quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit – ‘whatever is attached to the soil becomes
part of it.’
Part and parcel of the land itself.’ This third category was introduced by the House of
Lords in Elitestone. It includes larger structures such as bungalows, conservatories
attached to houses or items integral to construction of buildings e.g. doors, window
frames, skylights where the language of ‘fixtures’ is seen as less appropriate.
The significance of the fixture/chattel distinction
- Distinction is vital for determining ownership of items
- Items forming part of the land (fixtures) belong to the landowner
- Items not forming part of the land (chattels) may belong to another person other than the
landowner
- Certain scenarios in which distinction is particularly important
When land is sold or transferred to a new owner – any fixture on the land passes
automatically to that new owner (under s.62 of the LPA 1925). This means purchasers
usually want to argue items are fixtures rather than chattels. Any chattels on the land
being sold will remain in the ownership of the seller and do not pass to the purchaser.
When banks/lenders advance money by way of mortgage, they may wish to argue
certain items are fixtures to increase the value of their security.
When a lease comes to an end, there may be a dispute between a landlord and tenant
as to who owns certain items on the land. Fixtures will belong to the landlord (who
owns the land) whereas chattels may belong to the tenant. If, for example, during the
tenancy, the tenant attached her chattels to the land, they may have become fixtures
and therefore belong to the landlord when the lease ends.
How does the court determine when a chattel has become a fixture
- Agreement between the parties:
Disputes as to whether an item is a fixture or a chattel have mostly been removed by
the intro of specific conveyancing forms (Fittings and contents form TA10) and contracts
that require those buying and selling land to agree on who owns what before the sale
goes through (eg: a list of items included within the sale – curtains, carpets)
Any such agreement will be conclusive, so there is that there is no need to resort to the
common law principles on fixtures/chattels.
But sometimes items are missed off the agreed list, or the Protocol is not followed - in
such instances, the common law principles are considered
, When does a chattel become a fixture – common law principles
- There is not test for this and instead the courts use a case-by-case analysis to determine = court
does this objectively looking at all the circumstances of the case
- Courts deploy common sense when trying to distinguish – Wessex Reserve Forces and Cdets
Association v White (2006)
- Cases are highly fact-sensitive
- Two leading cases: Holland v Hodgson (1872) and the House of Lords in Elitestone Ltd v Morris
(1997).
Lord Lloyd in Elitesone confirmed the principles established by Blackburn J in Holland
that, in determining whether a chattel has become a fixture, there are 2 key factors:
o The degree of annexation of an item to the land
Focuses on the means and extent of annexation (attachment) of an item
to the land
Traditional approach:
Blackburn J in Holland
So this approach is a presumption of chattel for items resting on
land by their own weight unless there is contrary evidence of an
intention/purpose to annex the items to the land as fixtures
Holland v Hodgson (1872) - Blackburn J held that the looms had
been affixed to the floor and had indeed therefore become
fixtures. Emphasis was placed on the method or mode of affixing
the items to the land – here the fact of nailing the looms was
significant and the intention behind the annexation.
Leigh v Taylor (1902) – The Earl of Halsbury held they were
chattels as the mode of affixing the tapestries was ‘as slight as the
nature of the things would admit of’ and they had only been put
up for ornamentation and not to form part of the house
Berkley v Poulett (1977) – a statue of a Greek athlete resting on a
plinth by its own weight was a chattel (even if the plinth may
itself be a fixture)
Deen v Andrews (1985) – a freestanding greenhouse resting on its
own weight on a concrete base was a chattel
Gilpin v Legg (2017) -beach or costal huts resting on concrete
blocks were chattels
Tower Hamlets LBC v Bromley LBC (2015) – a Henry Moore
sculpture resting by its own weight on the ground was also a
chattel
The more contemporary approach to degree of annexation:
Focuses on whether an item is resting on its own weight and
explores other additional aspects such as removal of the item:
The easier it is to remove – the more likely it is that the item is a
chattel – the harder it is to remove it would involve demolition or
damage or a specialist would be needed – the more likely it is that
the item is a fixture
The 3 categories: Chattel, fixture and part and parcel of the land
- An item on land may be classified under one of three broad categories
Chattel
o Personal property and not part of the land
o Item of movable, personal property
o Eg: clothes, rugs, beds and paintings
Fixture
o part of the land
o Is a chattel that is attached to a parcel of land and becomes part of the land
itself
o Built-in furniture and integrated work surfaces, fireplaces
o Quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit – ‘whatever is attached to the soil becomes
part of it.’
Part and parcel of the land itself.’ This third category was introduced by the House of
Lords in Elitestone. It includes larger structures such as bungalows, conservatories
attached to houses or items integral to construction of buildings e.g. doors, window
frames, skylights where the language of ‘fixtures’ is seen as less appropriate.
The significance of the fixture/chattel distinction
- Distinction is vital for determining ownership of items
- Items forming part of the land (fixtures) belong to the landowner
- Items not forming part of the land (chattels) may belong to another person other than the
landowner
- Certain scenarios in which distinction is particularly important
When land is sold or transferred to a new owner – any fixture on the land passes
automatically to that new owner (under s.62 of the LPA 1925). This means purchasers
usually want to argue items are fixtures rather than chattels. Any chattels on the land
being sold will remain in the ownership of the seller and do not pass to the purchaser.
When banks/lenders advance money by way of mortgage, they may wish to argue
certain items are fixtures to increase the value of their security.
When a lease comes to an end, there may be a dispute between a landlord and tenant
as to who owns certain items on the land. Fixtures will belong to the landlord (who
owns the land) whereas chattels may belong to the tenant. If, for example, during the
tenancy, the tenant attached her chattels to the land, they may have become fixtures
and therefore belong to the landlord when the lease ends.
How does the court determine when a chattel has become a fixture
- Agreement between the parties:
Disputes as to whether an item is a fixture or a chattel have mostly been removed by
the intro of specific conveyancing forms (Fittings and contents form TA10) and contracts
that require those buying and selling land to agree on who owns what before the sale
goes through (eg: a list of items included within the sale – curtains, carpets)
Any such agreement will be conclusive, so there is that there is no need to resort to the
common law principles on fixtures/chattels.
But sometimes items are missed off the agreed list, or the Protocol is not followed - in
such instances, the common law principles are considered
, When does a chattel become a fixture – common law principles
- There is not test for this and instead the courts use a case-by-case analysis to determine = court
does this objectively looking at all the circumstances of the case
- Courts deploy common sense when trying to distinguish – Wessex Reserve Forces and Cdets
Association v White (2006)
- Cases are highly fact-sensitive
- Two leading cases: Holland v Hodgson (1872) and the House of Lords in Elitestone Ltd v Morris
(1997).
Lord Lloyd in Elitesone confirmed the principles established by Blackburn J in Holland
that, in determining whether a chattel has become a fixture, there are 2 key factors:
o The degree of annexation of an item to the land
Focuses on the means and extent of annexation (attachment) of an item
to the land
Traditional approach:
Blackburn J in Holland
So this approach is a presumption of chattel for items resting on
land by their own weight unless there is contrary evidence of an
intention/purpose to annex the items to the land as fixtures
Holland v Hodgson (1872) - Blackburn J held that the looms had
been affixed to the floor and had indeed therefore become
fixtures. Emphasis was placed on the method or mode of affixing
the items to the land – here the fact of nailing the looms was
significant and the intention behind the annexation.
Leigh v Taylor (1902) – The Earl of Halsbury held they were
chattels as the mode of affixing the tapestries was ‘as slight as the
nature of the things would admit of’ and they had only been put
up for ornamentation and not to form part of the house
Berkley v Poulett (1977) – a statue of a Greek athlete resting on a
plinth by its own weight was a chattel (even if the plinth may
itself be a fixture)
Deen v Andrews (1985) – a freestanding greenhouse resting on its
own weight on a concrete base was a chattel
Gilpin v Legg (2017) -beach or costal huts resting on concrete
blocks were chattels
Tower Hamlets LBC v Bromley LBC (2015) – a Henry Moore
sculpture resting by its own weight on the ground was also a
chattel
The more contemporary approach to degree of annexation:
Focuses on whether an item is resting on its own weight and
explores other additional aspects such as removal of the item:
The easier it is to remove – the more likely it is that the item is a
chattel – the harder it is to remove it would involve demolition or
damage or a specialist would be needed – the more likely it is that
the item is a fixture
