A fixture is anything which is physically (but not necessarily legally) removable and makes a permanent improvement to the land. A chattel is an item brought onto the land but does not become part of the land.
The general rule as to what is a fixture is expressed in the Latin phrase quicquid plantatur solo, solo credit, his is whatever is attached to the soil becomes part of the soil.
In deciding whether the bathroom mirror with integrated lighting is a fixture or chattel two factual tests as highlighted in Holland v Hodgson (1873) LR 7 CP 328 per Blackburn J are applied, the degree of annexation test and the purpose of annexation test.
The degree of annexation test requires that the object is to be fastened to or connected with the land in some way for there to be a presumption that it is a fixture so that where patio lights were attached to the wall of a house they were held to be fixtures [1]. If the object is not fixed but merely rests on its own weight there is a presumption that it is not a fixture and a presumption that, it is a chattel.
Therefore there would be a presumption that the mirror with the integrated lighting attached to the bathroom wall is a fixture and has become part and parcel of the land. This presumption can however be rebutted by applying the of annexation test
The courts in this test try to discover “the purpose which the object is serving…and not the purpose of the person who put it there” as per Lord Clyde [2]. This test is an objective one and not subjective; it is not concerned with the intention of the person who put the object there. It requires that the purpose of the object is to enhance the use and enjoyment of the land-to make a permanent improvement to the land for it to be a fixture.
This was illustrated in the case of D’Eyncourt v Gregory (1866) Law rep 3 Eq 382 where although a statute, some stone urns and stone ornament rested on their own weight they were held to be intended to make a permanent improvement and hence they were fixtures.
as relevant; if they were mentioned in the estate agent’s
In the contrasting case of Berkley v Poulett (1976) 120 Sol Jo 836 it was held that the statue resting on its own weight was not a fixture as it was placed there for the purpose of it being enjoyed in itself. Unlike in D’Eyncourt v Gregory it was not part of the architectural design and not there to improve the land.
The microwave oven in this case would be a chattel since the purpose of it is for it to be enjoyed and used in itself and not to make a permanent improvement to the land. As well as this the first test leads to the presumption that it is not a fixture since it is not connected or attached to the land.
Following the principles illustrated in the above cases the free standing cupboard which had been in the utility room would also be classed as a chattel. There is no degree of annexation as it rests on its own weight and therefore there is the presumption that it is not a fixture. Also the purpose of the cupboard was to facilitate the enjoyment and use of the utility room and not intended to make a permanent improvement; it is a chattel and does not fall within the definition of land.
There are conflicting cases when deciding whether the erection of buildings such as greenhouses and bungalows become part and parcel of the land. The annexation test was applied in a similar case of Deen v Andrews (1935) 53 P & CR 17 concerned the removal of a greenhouse by the vendors. The greenhouse was bolted to a concrete plinth which rested on its own weight, was held not to be a fixture. Following this precedence the large summer house which had been adjacent to the rockery at the bottom of the garden may not be demanded back from Siegfried to.
Conversely in the case of Elitesone Ltd v Morris [1997] 2 All ER 513 the House of Lords came to a different judgement. The plaintiffs were the owners of a site, divided into lots, which they acquired for development. The defendant occupupied a bangolow on one of the lots.the annual “licence” fee steadily rose to ₤1,000 in 1990. the defendants claimed yearly tenacies protected by the Rent Act 1977. However inorder for the defendant to be protected by the Act, depended upon whether the bungalow formed part of the realty. The House of lords concluded that the bunglow was land despite the absence of annexation.
Thereupon Boris could still argue that the summerhouse is a fixture, thou the onus of proof would lie upon him . The pupose of annexation test will be applied since the annexation test is not conclusive. if the purpose of the summer house is to enhance the use and enjoyment of the land and thus become part and parcel of the land as per D’Eyncourt v Gregory (1866), Boris could demand its return. However if like in Berkely v Poulett (1976), it was placed so that it can be enjoyed in itself, then Siegfred may have had the right to remove it.
In Hamp v Bygrave (1983) 266 Estates Gazette 720 [3] other factors were also seen particulars of the property, they were not said to be excluded from the sale when preliminary enquiris were mae, the seller had discovered reducing the purchace price if they were excluded, so must have thought that otherwise they would be included.If these factors apply to the items in question then the will be chatells and not fixtures.
Had Siegfred been a tenant and taken these items the right to remove fixtures may differ. If the article in question is a chattel it can be removed by the tenant had he brought in on to the land. If hoever the article is a fixture it cannot be removed and must be left fo the landlord. A tenant has the right to remove three classes of articles; ornamental and domestic fixtures, trade fixtures, and gricultural fixtures.The right for a tenant to remove articles which he has attached to the propert for the purpose of trade and the right to remove agricultural fixtiures by a tenant under are not relevant in this case. [4]
However Siegfred would have the right to remove ornaments and domestic fixtures which he had brought onto or attached to the land provided that the removal of such items will not cause substantial damage. This was illustrated in Spyer v Phillipson [1931] 2 Ch 183 where the tenant removed the panelling which he had errected in one room. Luxmore, J. [5] gave the judgement that the purpose of the anexation of the panelling and chimney pieces was for “the enjoyment of the chattel by the purchaser… They are tenant's fixtures and, being tenant's fixtures, they are removable by the tenant or his executors, during the currency of his tenancy” .
Boris maynot be able to demand back the return of the cupboard and the microwave since they are chattels and Siegfred would have the right to remove such items once he vacated the property. The right to remove chattels was also seen in the earlier case of Darby v Harris (1841) 1 WB 895 where the tenanat removed a kitchen range.
Whether Siegfred could retain the mirror would depend on whether the removal would cause substantial damage and the purpose of attaching the object to the land. If the mirror is found to be a fixture the the priciples laid out re De Falbe. Ward v. Taylor. [1900 D. 127.], may apply. In this case the court of appeal held that although the executors of Madame de Falbe had the right to retain the tapestries as part of her estate because they were held to be chattels and affixed for they purpose of enjoying them in therself but expences would have to be paid for damages resulting from the attachment and removal of the object.
Referring back to the first part of the question Boris might be able to demand back the return of mirror with integrated lighting and the summerhouse so long as he can prove they are fixtures. The microwave oven and freestanding cupboard fall within the definition of chattels and cannot be returned
[1] Hamp v Bygrave (1982) 266 Estates Gazette 720
[2] Elitesone Ltd v Morris [1997] 2 All ER 513 at 524
[3] The plaintiffs, Mr and Mrs Hamp, purchasers from the defendants, Mr and Mrs Bygrave, of a freehold property,, claimed the return or the value of items alleged to have been wrongfully removed by the defendants from the property prior to the completion of the sale.
[4] s10 Agricultural holdings Act 1986 or s8 Agrricultural tenanacie Act 1995
[5] Spyer v Phillipson- LuxmoreJ’s judgement from QB afirrmed on appeal to court of Appeal
Refrences-
- Definition of land lecture notes-Kathleen Shorrock: DMU university business and law school
-
MacKenzie & Mary Phillips.(2006) Textbook on Land Law:Oxford University press (11th ed)
- http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal