Assessing Land Fixtures: Consistency in Annexation and Purpose Rulings

Question 3

The question being explored in this essay relates to the definition of land in the context of what ‘fixture or fitting’ means and how this is approached by the courts. In Holland v. Hodgson, Blackburn J. has noted that even “blocks of stone placed one on the top of another without any mortar or cement for the purpose of forming a dry stone wall would become part of the land” when stones deposited in a builder's yard and stacked for the sake of convenience would be chattels and cannot be thought of as fixtures. Traditionally, land is constituted of physical land and all that is attached or embedded with it. Because the words ‘attached’ and ‘embedded’ are used in this traditional definition of land, courts have had to assess whether the fixtures embedded in the land are also part of the traditional definition of land. In this context, courts have developed principles to assess the extent to which annexation to the land and the purpose for which that thing is placed on the land leads to the assessment of something being a fixture or a chattel. This essay discusses case law to explain how the courts assess the conditions under which something put on the land can be assessed to be part of the land. If you require assistance with a law dissertation help, our team is here in place to support you.

The Law of Property Act 1925, section 205 (1) (ix) defines land as land of any tenure and all other items like mines and mineral, buildings, corporeal hereditaments, incorporeal hereditaments, and easement, privileges or any other benefit derived from the land. As can be seen, this is a broad definition of land and includes many aspects of the land. Because it is a broad definition, it is possible that there will at times be some confusion as to what constitutes land. It would also be worthwhile to note the definition of fixtures and chattels, which fixture being defined as an item brought onto the land and treated as attached to the land to the point of being a fixture on the land to form part of the land and be subject to transfer of the land. On the other hand, chattel is also brought to the land but is not attached to the land to the extent of being treated as part of the land. In practical terms, fixtures form part of the transfer of title to property and chattel does not so form the part of the title to the property. The concept of fixtures being part of the land has been adopted from the Roman principle of accessio which means that where an item is attached to another item, then the attached item is an “accession” of the other item and is a part of the item; this also extends to the principle that things attached to the land become part of the land. Thus, the concept is now a part of the common law.

The courts have developed the principles of degree of annexation and purpose of installation to assess something placed on the land as part of the land. This was done in the case of Holland v. Hodgson, where the court explained how an item can be determined to be a fixture or fitting. The explanation was based on the idea that the same item, which is, blocks of stone, can be fixture based on the annexation of the same as well as the purpose for which it is placed there; but that it can also be a fitting based on the same factors. Similarly, in Elitestone v Morris, the House of Lords held that a bungalow resting on concrete blocks of land is a fixture because it cannot be moved from there without being damaged. Again, the principle relates to the extent of annexation of the item, in this case, a bungalow for the court to determine that the item is not a fitting and that it is a fixture. Based on these cases, two points can be noted as central to the courts’ determination of something as a fixture and not as a fitting: the degree of annexation in the context of what is the nature of the property; and purpose of annexation. In the next part of the essay, other cases will be considered to assess whether the courts have adopted a consistent approach to determining whether some item is a fixture or whether the courts have adopted differing standards for such determination in different cases.

1. Holland v. Hodgson (1872) L.R. 7 C.P., [335].
2. Judith-Anne MacKenzie and Mary Phillips, Textbook on Land Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2014) 10.
3. ML Lower, ‘A Brief Explanation and Evaluation of the Law on Fixtures’ (2011), accessed http://works.bepress.com/michael_lower/9/
4. Ibid
5. Ibid
6. Samantha Hepburn and Steve Jaynes, ‘The nature and scope of rights of removal’ (2013) 2(3) Property Law Review 123.
7. Holland v. Hodgson (1872) L.R. 7 C.P.

In Hamp v Bygrave, the question that came before the court was whether stone urns and statues are chattels or fixtures where the seller had orally told the buyer that he would not remove these from the property on sale. In this case, the court decided that the stone urns and statues formed fixture on the land because of the statement made by the seller that it would remain on the property. This case turns more on the issue of estoppel because the seller was estopped from going back on the statement made earlier so, it may be argued that the court did not decide the matter only on the basis of the question of annexation. A similar question of whether statues were part of the land or were chattels was also taken in the case of D’Eyncourt v Gregory. In this case, the statues were attached to the land by their own weight, and were installed as part of the architectural design of the land and were held to be part of the land and not chattels. Both these cases related to statues, which are generally embedded in the land and often form part of the architectural design or have the purpose of enhancing the land. A more wider range of items were considered in TBS Bank Plc v Botham, where the question before the court was whether a diverse range of items like bathroom fittings, kitchen units, cooker, freezer fridge, curtains, carpets, and blinds were part of the land or were fittings. This case is more clearly demonstrative of the use of annexation and purpose of installation for deciding whether some item is a fixture or not. The court held that bathroom fittings and kitchen units items are fixtures on the property and were part of the land because of their annexation on the land and purpose for which they have been installed. Based on the same principle of annexation and purpose of installation, items like cooker, freezer, carpets and blinds, among other items were not fixtures because their attachment to the property was not substantial and so the annexation was not seen in this case. This case demonstrates very clearly the approach taken by the court for determining whether some item is a fixture or not and this approach is consistent with the decision of the court in Holland v. Hodgson.

It would also be important to consider whether the nature of the property usage impacts the decision of the courts on assessing whether some item is a fixture or not based on who has installed it, tenant or owner. In Spyer v Phillipson, an antique panelling installed by the tenant was held to not be a fixture because the panelling was ornamental and its removal did not damage the property. Interestingly, even if the removal of the item may cause damage the property, the court may still assess it to be a chattel because the installation was done by the tenant of the property as was the case in Mancettor Developments Ltd v Garmonson Ltd., where the tenant was allowed to remove the item after compensating the owner. What can be seen here is that the approach of the court to assessment of the item as a fixture or a chattel may vary to a degree based on whether the item was installed by a tenant and not the owner. This is explained on the courts upholding a right of removal, under common law.

1. Elitestone Ltd v Morris [1997] 1 WLR 687.
2. Ben McFarlane, Nicholas Hopkins, Sarah Nield, Land Law: Text, Cases, and Materials (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2015) 45.
3. Hamp v Bygrave (1983) 266 EG 720.
4. D’Eyncourt v Gregory (1866) LR 3 Eq 382.
5. Ibid.
6. TBS Bank Plc v Botham (1996) EGCS 149.
7. Judith Bray, Key Cases Land Law, Second Edition (Oxon: Routledge 2013) 15.

To conclude this essay, the law laid down in a number of cases shows consistency and courts have generally decided that some item is a fixture based on the extent to which it is attached to the land and the purpose for its installation. Generally, and barring cases involving tenants, if an item is annexed to the property and cannot be removed from the property without damaging it or the property, then it is a fixture and is a part of the land. In the case of the item being installed by tenants, the court may however allow the right to removal even if there is some damage to the property provided that the damage can be compensated by the tenant. The courts have consistently used the principles of annexation and purpose of annexation to assess such items to be a part of the land. In the cases discussed in this essay, there is a consistent approach taken to decide this matter except in the cases involving tenants. This also means that the court may take a slightly different approach in cases involving tenants but that can still be related to the purpose of annexation being decorative.

1. Spyer v Phillipson [1931] 2 Ch 183.
2. Mancettor Developments Ltd v Garmonson Ltd [1986] QB 1212.
3. Stuart Bridge, ‘Part and parcel: fixtures in the House of Lords’ (1997) 56(3) The Cambridge Law Journal 498.

Looking for further insights on Analysis of Proprietary Estoppel? Click here.

Bibliography

Books

Bray J, Key Cases Land Law, Second Edition (Oxon: Routledge 2013).

McFarlane B, Nicholas Hopkins, Sarah Nield, Land Law: Text, Cases, and Materials (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2015).

MacKenzie J and Mary Phillips, Textbook on Land Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2014).

Journals

Hepburn S and Steve Jaynes, ‘The nature and scope of rights of removal’ (2013) 2(3) Property Law Review 123.

Bridge S, ‘Part and parcel: fixtures in the House of Lords’ (1997) 56(3) The Cambridge Law Journal 498.

Websites

Lower ML, ‘A Brief Explanation and Evaluation of the Law on Fixtures’ (2011), accessed http://works.bepress.com/michael_lower/9/