fixtures and chattles

• The purpose of annexation is now the predominant test in determining whether an item is a fixture or chattel
• Determining rights of finders


  1. Finder acquires no right unless the chattel has been abandoned or lost and the finder takes it into their care

  2. If the finder is trespassing or acting with dishonest intent then they acquire very few rights

  3. The finder acquires ownership against all but the true owner if they were on the land lawfully

  4. An employee working in the course of their employment who finds an item finds that item on behalf of their employer

  5. The finder is under an obligation to take measures to find the owner of the object
• Fixtures


  Items that are permanently attached to the land
• Chattels


  Items that are not permanently attached to the land
• Degree of Annexation


  • The extent to which an item is physically attached to the land
• Degree of Annexation cases


  • Royal Parks Ltd v Bluebird Boats Ltd [2021]
  • Borwick Development Solutions Ltd v Clear Water Fishing Limited [2020]
  • Elite Stone v Morris [1997]
  • Holland v Hodgson [1872]
  • Hulme v Brigham [1943]
  • Berkley v Poulett
• Elitestone categorisation


  (a) a chattel, (b) a fixture, or (c) part and parcel of the land itself
• The courts' handling of the "degree of annexation" test has led to uncertainty
• Purpose of Annexation


  • The reason an item is attached to the land
• Purpose of Annexation cases


  • Royal Parks Ltd v Bluebird Boats Ltd [2021]
  • Elite Stone v Morris [1997]
  • Leigh v Taylor [1902]
  • Re Whaley [1908]
  • Elitestone Ltd v Morris [1997]
  • Spielplatz Ltd v Pearson [2015]
• Subjective intention isn't decisive; the purpose of annexation must be assessed objectively
• The confusion surrounding the role of intention in fixture law stems from Blackburn J's formulation in Holland
• Bevan argues intention should be assessed objectively, as subjective agreements or assumptions between parties are irrelevant to determining the legal status of an item
• Blackburn J noted in Holland that intention may contradict assumptions based on physical attachment
• Luther contends that considering express agreements can provide a firmer basis for determining an item's status than relying solely on physical characteristics
• Aesthetics


  • The role of an item's contribution to the architectural design or aesthetic scheme of a property
• Aesthetics cases


  • D'Eyncourt v Gregory [1866]
  • Leigh v Taylor [1902]
  • Re Whaley [1908]
  • Spielplatz Ltd v Pearson [2015]
• The concept of 'architectural design' or 'aesthetic scheme' is problematic in fixture law
• Rigby LJ in Re De Falbe expressed serious doubts about Lord Romilly's reasoning in D'Eyncourt v Gregory
• Neville J's reasoning in Re Whaley emphasized that the items were integrated into the property's decoration rather than being affixed for their own enjoyment as separate chattels
• Contemporary cases like Botham and London Borough of Tower Hamlets v London Borough of Bromley demonstrate a departure from the 'architectural design' approach
• The judgment in Tower Hamlets raises questions about the application of the 'architectural design' concept, particularly in public settings
• The concept of 'architectural design' in determining fixture status presents significant challenges, particularly when applied to public art installations versus private objects in private spaces
• The lack of clarity and exposition by the court, particularly in cases like Tower Hamlets v Bromley, leaves the concept of 'architectural design' open to discrimination between public and private spaces without adequate justification or analysis
• The law of fixtures struggles to adapt to modern society and new contexts, evident in its inability to provide clear answers regarding the status of everyday items like white goods in Botham
• The application of the 'architectural design' principle appears antiquated and anachronistic, favoring the preservation of historic houses and ornamental items in private spaces over public art in less affluent areas
• This aligns more with the goals of organizations like Heritage England rather than with broader property law principles
• Lord Romilly MR himself acknowledged the difficulty in distinguishing between ornamental statues and those forming part of an architectural design, highlighting the arbitrary nature of such distinctions
• The courts intuitively consider the subjective intentions behind architectural designs when determining fixture status
• This approach delves into pure subjectivity, such as the desires of those creating the design or the local traditions associated with the property
• This apparent contradiction between the objective approach mandated by precedent and the subjective considerations in architectural design cases casts doubt on the rationality of the assertions made in Melluish and Elitestone
• It raises questions about the consistency and predictability of fixture law
• Luther argues that rejecting subjective intention, as seen in cases like Melluish and Elitestone, undermines Blackburn J's formulation of the 'tests' in fixture law
• He points out that in Gorringe, the court prioritized the nature of annexation over express agreements regarding ownership
• The legal tests for determining whether an item is a fixture or a chattel often lead to divergent results, undermining rationality in the law
• Fixture/Chattel Determination


  • In Holland v Hodgson, wool looms were deemed fixtures despite being easily removable without causing damage to the building
  • Re De Falbe held that tapestries were chattels affixed purely for ornamentation, while Lord Chesterfield's Settled Estates deemed Grinling Gibbons carvings as fixtures
  • Hulme v Brigham and Fahstone Ltd v Biesse Group UK Ltd both engaged in Blackburn J's tests, yet reached different conclusions on the fixture/chattel status of heavy machinery
• Berkley v Poulett illustrates confusion in legal principles
• Scarman LJ suggested that high physical annexation could still result in chattel status, while objects resting on the ground could be fixtures if sufficiently heavy
• Fixture/Chattel Determination


  • Despite similar factual contexts, cases like Hamp v Bygrave and D'Eyncourt v Gregory reached opposite conclusions on the fixture/chattel status of garden ornaments and stone fittings
• Elitestone and Spielplatz Ltd v Pearson introduced further complexity