Land Fixture Evaluation

Question

This essay critically evaluates the definition of land with reference to how courts have determined whether an item of property is a ‘fixture or fitting’. The essay takes as its starting point the traditional concept of land, which is that land is constituted of physical land and everything that is attached or embedded in the land. The essay finds that courts have determined that an item is a fixture based on the extent of the annexation and its purpose.

The traditional definition of land is reflected in the statutory definition of land in the Law of Property Act 1925, section 205 (1) (ix) as per which land includes apart from the physical land, other items like mines and mineral, buildings and other corporeal hereditaments, as well as incorporeal hereditaments. Although the definition of land seems to be simple, there are complexities associated with the determination of whether something on the land, which is not a part of the physical land, is a fixture attached or embedded in the land to be termed a fixture. This can be seen in the House of Lords decision in Elitestone v Morris, wherein it was held that a bungalow that cannot be without being destroyed is a part of the land and could not have been intended to be a chattel, where the bungalow was rested on concrete blocks of land. The House of Lords reasoning is based on the degree of annexation and the decisions discussed in this essay suggest that this is the principle that courts usually adopt in such cases.

In Holland v. Hodgson, Blackburn J explained how courts would determine whether an item is a fixture or fitting. He noted that the same item (blocks of stone) could be a fixture or a fitting depending on how it is placed on the society and the purpose for which it is placed there. The statement can be generally said to be a correct assessment of how courts have determined whether some item is a fixture or a fitting. The determination of whether something is a fixture, or a fitting goes to the root of defining ‘land’ in a given case, which may also have implications for the expectations of the parties involved in some dealing related to the land.

The significance of determination of whether some item is a fixture or fitting is that such determination is central to the determination of scope of interest that parties may have in the land. As mentioned above, land includes things that are attached to the land or are embedded in it. In case of conflicting claims of scope of interest of two parties in land, courts have to determine whether ‘land’ would extend to certain fixtures or whether the claimed fixtures are deemed fittings and therefore do not form part of the land. Fittings are chattels and they do not form part of land, therefore, interest in the land will not extend to the fittings.

In Holland v Hodgson, the question was whether the spinning looms that were attached to the floor, were fixtures or chattels. The Court of Exchequer Chamber made the determination of whether the spinning looms were fixtures or chattels on the basis of degree of the affixing and the purpose of the affixation of the spinning looms, holding that as the looms were attached to the land by their own weight and not for the purpose of annexation to the land, these were chattels and not fixtures. Two points are of significance: first, degree of annexation is with reference to the nature of the property; and second, the purpose of annexation is with reference to whether it was intended to be only ornamental or purposive.

This understanding is demonstrated in other cases as well. For example, in D’Eyncourt v Gregory, the question was whether statues on the property amounted to fixtures or chattels. Although the statues, like the spinning looms in Holland v Hodgson were attached to the land by their own weight, these were held to be fixtures on the basis of their having been installed as part of the architectural design to enhance the land. On the other hand, in Hamp v Bygrave, stone urns and statues on the property were held to be chattels based on the purpose of annexation but because the seller had orally stated that these would form part of the land on sale, he was estopped from denying this later. Thus, the purpose of annexation appears to have found more weight in the considerations of the court.

A range of items on the property came to be considered for their being fixtures or chattels in TBS Bank Plc v Botham, including bathroom fittings, kitchen workspaces, kitchen units, cooker, freezer fridge, curtains, carpets, and blinds; these were in a flat repossessed by the bank and sold with the apartment. The reasoning used by the court with reference to these different items shows that both the degree of annexation and purpose of annexation forms part of the test for assessment of items as fixtures or fittings. Bathroom fittings, kitchen workspaces, and kitchen units items were held to have a high degree of annexation and purpose of adding usability and were accordingly held to be fixtures. On the other hand, cooker, freezer, fridge, curtains, carpets and blinds, were attached to the apartment in an insubstantial way and were declared to be chattels.

As the cases discussed above demonstrate, although the definition of land may be simple in itself, the question of whether some item is a fixture or fitting could be more complex. However, it is submitted that the courts have developed a simpler test for assessing whether something is a fixture or a fitting, where by having regard to the degree of annexation and the purpose of annexation, the court may be able to determine the nature of the item. This becomes significant because it determines the scope of the interest that a person has in the land. Generally, the sale of land or repossession by mortgagor, can lead to the raising of these questions. However, similar questions are also raised in the cases involving tenants; this may happen when tenants have attached an item to the property and the end of tenancy can raise the question as to whether the item be treated as a chattel or a fixture. Such a situation arose in Spyer v Phillipson, where the tenant installed an antique panelling on the property and wanted to take away the panelling at the end of the tenancy period. The Court of Appeal held that the panelling was meant to be ornamental and its removal did not damage the property; therefore, it was a chattel and not a fixture. Similarly, in Young v Dalgety Plc, the tenant was allowed to take away the carpets by the Court of Appeal decision. Even where the removal of the item meant some damage to the property in Mancettor Developments Ltd v Garmonson Ltd., the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court allowed it if the tenant would compensate the owner for the damage.

It can be seen that there is some difference of approach with regard to items put in the property by the tenant as compared to the items put on the property by the owner. If an owner puts an item on the property with a degree of annexation and the purpose of enhancing the property, the courts have tended to view such items as fixtures; however, where this is done by tenants the courts have taken a more flexible approach and allowed the removal of the items. Although this may appear to be conflicting, it does relate to the courts’ emphasis on the purpose of relationship between the owner and land and a tenant and land; unlike ownership which is perpetual, tenancy is meant to be transitional in nature and tenants do not intend to stay on the property permanently. This may be linked to the purpose of annexation also being transitional in nature. Thus, the different approach may be justified in case of tenants.

To conclude this essay, courts have assessed that items are fixtures based on degree of their annexation and purpose of their annexation, in which case they are a part of land. What is important is that the item be attached to the land in a way that it is clear that it is not meant to be temporary or decorative, but rather that it should be intended to be a part of the land.

Bibliography

Books

• Bray J, Key Cases Land Law, Second Edition (Oxon: Routledge 2013)
• MacKenzie J and Phillips M, Textbook on Land Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2014)
• McFarlane B, Hopkins n and Nield S, Land Law: Text, Cases, and Materials (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2015)

Journals

• Bridge S, ‘Part and parcel: fixtures in the House of Lords’ (1997) 56(3) The Cambridge Law Journal 498
• Luther P, ‘Fixtures and Chattels: A Question of More or Less...’ (2004) 24(4) Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 597