fixture and fittings Flashcards
What is the Latin Maxim “whatever is attached to the soil becomes part of it?”
quicquid plantatur solo, solo credit
What statue defines Land as including all corporeal and incorporeal hereditaments.?
Under s205 (1) (ix) Law of Property Act (LPA)1925
What is an Incorporeal hereditament?
Incorporeal hereditaments are intangible rights over the land of another, which benefit the land of the original right holder to which they are attached, for example, easements and restrictive covenants.
What is a Corporeal hereditaments?
Corporeal hereditaments are tangible, physical things that can be seen or touched.
What statue governs “whatever is attached to the soil becomes part of it?”
s62 (1) & (2) LPA 1925.
What is a fixture?
A fixture is considered to be part of the land whoever owns the freehold land.
s. 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925.
What is a fitting?
Chattels are anything that is not classed as a fixture – these are items which may be attached to the property but can be moved and are not treated as being part of the land.
In determining what amounts to a fixture, the courts now use two separate but related tests:
What are they?
The degree of annexation and the purpose of annexation.
The courts frequently use both tests to reach a conclusion as to whether an object is a fixture or fitting.
Following the Case of Holland V Hodgson, there are two key tests the courts will adopt when determining if an object is a fixture or a chattel:
1) The degree of annexation, (If the object is removed, will it cause substantial damage)
2) The purpose of annexation (Was the intention to better enjoy the land or the item?)
What is the degree of annexation?
The degree of annexation depends upon how firmly an object is fastened or fixed to a property.
An item that is fixed to property with a high degree of annexation is likely (on the face of it) to be a fixture, whereas an object that is removable with little or no annexation to the property is likely (on the face of it) to be a fitting.
The courts may wish to consider the following:
1) Is the object attached by its own weight, or with nails/looms?
2) If the object is removed, will it cause substantial damage?
3) Can it be easily removed?
NAME THE CASE
The Court of Appeal held that the bath, lavatory and bathroom fittings were fixtures in addition to the kitchen sink and units.
The curtains, carpets, light fittings, kitchen appliances such as washing machines, dishwashers, cookers were chattels.
The fridge and oven were to be used for their normal purposes.
They were not installed with the intention of being a permanent or lasting improvement to the building. If the attachment is temporary and is no more than necessary for the item to be used and enjoyed, then it will remain a chattel.
BOTHAM V TSB
NAME THE CASE
the House of Lords had to decide if the bungalow itself was part of the land upon which it stood. They emphasised that with a house, the answer depended as much on common sense as it did on precise analysis. As only a process of destruction could have removed the bungalow it had to be a fixture.
ELITESTONE V MORRIS
NAME THE CASE
The court held that a boathouse was considered as a fixture. The steel-framed boathouse was bolted into a concrete floor slab on piled foundations, and could only be removed by severing the fixings and by causing substantial destruction of its components. It had been constructed as a permanent and substantial improvement to the land.
Royal Parks Limited
what is The Purpose of Annexation test
The purpose of annexation test asks a different question.
It considers whether the item was brought onto the land for the better enjoyment of the land (in which case it is a fixture) or whether it was brought onto the land to be enjoyed in its own right (in which case it is a chattel).
The purpose of annexation assists in the determination of such items by sensibly questioning the reasoning behind the attachment.
The courts, when applying the second test, are uninterested in the subjective intentions of the person who put the object there but with the objective external circumstances of the case.
NAME THE CASE
the court was required to determine whether the tapestries had become fixtures belonging to the mansion or whether they remained chattels. It was held that they were ornamentation for the enjoyment of the person while occupying the house. The tapestries could be easily removed.
Leigh V Taylor,
