LAND REVISION:
FIXTURES + CHATTELS
STEP 1: FIXTURES OR CHATTELS?
If contract is silent on what is included in the sale, one must classify objects as either fixtures of chattels. State in exam ‘assuming the contract for sale is silent on whether … is
included in the sale, whether or not it automatically passes with the land/ property depends on whether they are classified as fixtures or chattels’
STEP 2: DEFINE
Fixtures: they form part of the land and must remain with the land when sold on/ items which have been attached to property – cannot be removed by seller unless permitted by an
express term in the contract
Chattels: removable personal possessions and objects that do not form part of land and seller will be free to take them – these can be removed by the seller (not included in the sale)
STEP 3: TWO-PART TESTS (Berkley v Poulett)
TEST 1
METHOD AND DEGREE OF ANNEXATION TEST
Apply to facts: This looks are how securely an item is attached. Consider whether it would cause serious damage to remove this item – if not enough evidence, state ‘if it not
known how securely it is attached’ consider both options
o If an item is securely attached this raises a rebuttable presumption that it is a fixture (Buckland v Butterfield) and freestanding items are rebuttably presumed to
be chattels (Berkley v Poulett)/ can be removed with ease (Dibble v Moore) will be chattel, but either of these presumptions can be rebutted by Test 2 contrary
evidence as to whether the object was intended as a permanent addition to the land.
TEST 2
OBJECT AND PURPOSE OF ANNEXATION TEST (Gregory; Leigh v Taylor) MORE IMPORTANT TEST (This is a definitive test)
This looks at the reason it was placed there: was it objectively speaking intended to permanently improve the land?
Gregory: if forms part of architectural design of garden/ house will be a fixture (even if free-standing and not firmly fixed)/ placed to enhance value and integral part of
design? If the item there to enhance enjoyment of the property it is it there to be enjoyed in itself?
o Berkley v Poulett: if an item on property can be enjoyed (artwork) it remains chattel even if fixed
*In exam, if unclear state ‘more information is needed as to the nature of the object before deciding whether it is a fixture of chattel’
There are two tests which must be applied to determine whether an item is a fixture of chattel:
STEP 4: CASE GUIDANCE
FIXTURE CHATTEL
Berkley v Poulett: Plinth Berkley v Poulett: object was a statute – chattel provided capable of being removed
Gregory: Tapestries fixed into panelling, stone figures around a staircase without causing damage and not part of architectural design/ freestanding
and stone garden seats were held to enhance the property and were Botham: light fittings, white goods, fitted carpets, fridges and curtains all usually chattels
fixtures (in a landscaped garden) – things installed by tenants can usually be removed as chattels. Degree of annexation is
Botham: Fitted kitchen units were fixtures due to high degree of light.
annexation Leigh v Taylor: Tapestries were firmly fixed, but it was said they could only be enjoyed in
Elitestone: Freestanding bungalow and garden shed/ greenhouse on this way and were therefore chattels
concrete blocks chattels was held to be part of land. Chattel provided Dibble v Moore: If it is easily removed, the presumption will be chattel. A greenhouse
capable of being easily dismantled and transferred around garden – but in resting on its own weight was held to be a chattel
this case it was put there to permanently improve the land and its removal
would cause the land to break up
CHATTELS & FIXTURES
Berkeley v Poulett Test 1. Degree of annexation
2. Reason for Annexation
D’Eyncourt Freestanding items which are part of the architectural design =
fixtures
Leigh v Taylor Application If annexation is only way for fixed item to display/enjoy chattel
(i.e. shelves)
Elitestone A house constructed in such a way so as to be removeable, w/o
destruction = chattel
Botham v TSB White Goods Standard sizes = chattel
Fitted kitchen units = fixtures
ENFORCEABILITY OF THIRD-PARTY RIGHTS
IDENTIFICATION OF THIRD-PARTY RIGHTS/ INTERESTS
Identify the type of third-party right being claimed/ asserted- state ‘claimant has […] possible rights in…’. Several rights must be considered separately in the exam.
Mortgage
FLA
This is the right to occupy the matrimonial home
Estate Contract
Only equitable and not capable of being legal (S1(2) LPA 1925)
- Option to purchase land: ‘right to buy’
- Equitable lease
Restrictive Covenant
Not being about to do something without consent
State: ‘person appears to have the benefit of a restrictive covenant over …’- it is not capable of being legal and it is irrelevant if it is contained in a deed, the only way
that an interest is capable of being legal is if it appears in S1 LPA 1925.
Easement
Right to use a walkway/driveway to park care= this is a key indicator- if duration is silent, assumed to be forever (can be legal or equitable)
Trust
FIXTURES + CHATTELS
STEP 1: FIXTURES OR CHATTELS?
If contract is silent on what is included in the sale, one must classify objects as either fixtures of chattels. State in exam ‘assuming the contract for sale is silent on whether … is
included in the sale, whether or not it automatically passes with the land/ property depends on whether they are classified as fixtures or chattels’
STEP 2: DEFINE
Fixtures: they form part of the land and must remain with the land when sold on/ items which have been attached to property – cannot be removed by seller unless permitted by an
express term in the contract
Chattels: removable personal possessions and objects that do not form part of land and seller will be free to take them – these can be removed by the seller (not included in the sale)
STEP 3: TWO-PART TESTS (Berkley v Poulett)
TEST 1
METHOD AND DEGREE OF ANNEXATION TEST
Apply to facts: This looks are how securely an item is attached. Consider whether it would cause serious damage to remove this item – if not enough evidence, state ‘if it not
known how securely it is attached’ consider both options
o If an item is securely attached this raises a rebuttable presumption that it is a fixture (Buckland v Butterfield) and freestanding items are rebuttably presumed to
be chattels (Berkley v Poulett)/ can be removed with ease (Dibble v Moore) will be chattel, but either of these presumptions can be rebutted by Test 2 contrary
evidence as to whether the object was intended as a permanent addition to the land.
TEST 2
OBJECT AND PURPOSE OF ANNEXATION TEST (Gregory; Leigh v Taylor) MORE IMPORTANT TEST (This is a definitive test)
This looks at the reason it was placed there: was it objectively speaking intended to permanently improve the land?
Gregory: if forms part of architectural design of garden/ house will be a fixture (even if free-standing and not firmly fixed)/ placed to enhance value and integral part of
design? If the item there to enhance enjoyment of the property it is it there to be enjoyed in itself?
o Berkley v Poulett: if an item on property can be enjoyed (artwork) it remains chattel even if fixed
*In exam, if unclear state ‘more information is needed as to the nature of the object before deciding whether it is a fixture of chattel’
There are two tests which must be applied to determine whether an item is a fixture of chattel:
STEP 4: CASE GUIDANCE
FIXTURE CHATTEL
Berkley v Poulett: Plinth Berkley v Poulett: object was a statute – chattel provided capable of being removed
Gregory: Tapestries fixed into panelling, stone figures around a staircase without causing damage and not part of architectural design/ freestanding
and stone garden seats were held to enhance the property and were Botham: light fittings, white goods, fitted carpets, fridges and curtains all usually chattels
fixtures (in a landscaped garden) – things installed by tenants can usually be removed as chattels. Degree of annexation is
Botham: Fitted kitchen units were fixtures due to high degree of light.
annexation Leigh v Taylor: Tapestries were firmly fixed, but it was said they could only be enjoyed in
Elitestone: Freestanding bungalow and garden shed/ greenhouse on this way and were therefore chattels
concrete blocks chattels was held to be part of land. Chattel provided Dibble v Moore: If it is easily removed, the presumption will be chattel. A greenhouse
capable of being easily dismantled and transferred around garden – but in resting on its own weight was held to be a chattel
this case it was put there to permanently improve the land and its removal
would cause the land to break up
CHATTELS & FIXTURES
Berkeley v Poulett Test 1. Degree of annexation
2. Reason for Annexation
D’Eyncourt Freestanding items which are part of the architectural design =
fixtures
Leigh v Taylor Application If annexation is only way for fixed item to display/enjoy chattel
(i.e. shelves)
Elitestone A house constructed in such a way so as to be removeable, w/o
destruction = chattel
Botham v TSB White Goods Standard sizes = chattel
Fitted kitchen units = fixtures
ENFORCEABILITY OF THIRD-PARTY RIGHTS
IDENTIFICATION OF THIRD-PARTY RIGHTS/ INTERESTS
Identify the type of third-party right being claimed/ asserted- state ‘claimant has […] possible rights in…’. Several rights must be considered separately in the exam.
Mortgage
FLA
This is the right to occupy the matrimonial home
Estate Contract
Only equitable and not capable of being legal (S1(2) LPA 1925)
- Option to purchase land: ‘right to buy’
- Equitable lease
Restrictive Covenant
Not being about to do something without consent
State: ‘person appears to have the benefit of a restrictive covenant over …’- it is not capable of being legal and it is irrelevant if it is contained in a deed, the only way
that an interest is capable of being legal is if it appears in S1 LPA 1925.
Easement
Right to use a walkway/driveway to park care= this is a key indicator- if duration is silent, assumed to be forever (can be legal or equitable)
Trust
