Fixtures & Fittings

1. Introduction
1. When we think of land, traditionally we may think of aches of green fields or vast mountains in the countryside. However, the law on land shows us that there is much, much more.
  1. S205(1) Law of Property Act 1925
    1. Expands the nature of land to include and tenure, mine and minerals within the perimeters of the land in question, from the down to the earth’s core to the heavens above.
      1. Therefore ‘Land’ is to be interpreted by law to include building and other structures, land covered with water, and any estate, interest, easement, servitude or right in or over land.
        2. What are Fixtures & Fittings
        Chattels are items of personal property, which can be fixed or fitted to a piece of land
        Fixtures
        an item of personal property the ownership of which stays with the individual
        S62 Law of Property Act 1925
        your right as a landowner is you own all the physical additions that come with the land
        Therefore it is important to distinguish the difference between a fixture and a fitting when there is a transfer in ownership of the property. Any items that are fixtures will belong to the transferee. If it is a sale of the land, the ownership of the fixtures transfers as soon as the contract of sale is binding and the seller can no longer remove these items from the property.
        Taylor v Hamer
        The seller of the house removed a large area of flagstones AFTER the first inspection by the purchasers. He told the purchasers that these had been removed and were not part of the sale
        The court held that any reasonable person would have beloved that the property was for sale with the flagstones as they were an integral part of the gardens feature for the dog house
        If a buyer is shown a property upon inspection and decides to go through with completion, if prior to the sale valuable fixtures are removed from the land without notices to the buyer, then the buyer is ought to believe that he is being sold what he originally was told
        3. What constitutes a Fixture or a Fitting
        Holland v Hodgson
        The claimant owned some looms for the use of his mill, which were attached to the stone floors by nails, however easily removable. Once the failure of payments arose the mill was repossessed.
        The courts had to consider whether the looms were fixed to the land forming part of structure or were they mere fittings by the claimant
        Blackburn J's Judgement
        objects, which are affixed to the land even slightly, are to be considered as part of the land. The question is whether the object was attached to the land to be enjoyed as a fitting or whether it is for the more convenient use of the land.
        The Test:
        The degree or mode of annexation
        The general purpose of annexation
        Is this not subjective?
        Purpose = Intention. Intention is SUBJECTIVE
        I was held that the more an item is affixed to the land even SLIGHTLY would be considered part of the land
        UNLESS the circumstances are such that it was intended all along to continue as a fitting
        The tapestries were affixed via nail, which contradicts BLACKBURN J's argument of 'SLIGHTLY' affixed being enough to constitute a fixture
        If this case was to arise in a modern ear, would tapestries affixed to the walls with nails or a modern use such as sticky tabs which would cause minimal damage when removed.
        OBJECTIVE
        whether an item is a fixture or a chattel has proprietary consequences
        Fittings
        an item of personal property which is attached to the land and it becomes part of the land and the individual loses ownership of it
4. The OBJECTIVE test
1. The test of annexation laid out by Blackburn J in Holland v Hodgson seeks to find the objective intention of the party who brought the item onto the land.
  1. Leigh v Taylor
    1. The tenant of a beautiful mansion had placed many valuable tapestries which were stretched on boards and affixed to the walls for decoration. When the tenant died the court were asked to question whether they had become fixtures to the land
      1. Held: that the tapestries did not form part of the land and remained as fittings.
        Earl of Halsbury stated that he see's no problem with putting up an ornament for the enjoyment of your home. TAPESTRIES are meant to be hung up which is necessary for ordinary enjoyment of the item]
        The degree of annexation was not attached so that it required such force, nor was the object heavy enough to require major assistance in removal.
        The purpose of annexation was arguably for the enjoyment of living, the decor went with the theme of the home
        THEREFORE, one could argue that if the lady tenant had not passed away and instead had placed the mansion up for sale, would the events of TAYLOR V HAMER apply and what is shown would have been fixed as in became a part of the integral character of the home
      2. Could valuable tapestries which would ordinarily not feature in another home be the fixture to a more desirable expensive home like this one.
  2. Botham v TSB
    1. After defaulting on her mortgage, Mrs Botham was left with nothing and tried to claim that upon repossession the items she owned in her home were not fixtures to the land and should remain as her
      1. The court held that the bathroom fittings, bath and lavatory along with the kitchen sink and units were fixtures to the land and should remain
        “If the item viewed objectively, is intended to be permanent and to afford a lasting improvement to the building, the thing will have become a fixture. 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.”
        The court held in this instance that the cooker and dishwasher appliances were fittings to the home. This can be seen as slight contradiction as one could argue that they were just as 'fixed' to the land as those deemed fixtures
        the law is rigged as they may fear on a floodgate of litigation if the test was applied too strictly
  3. Lord Cockburn stated in Dixon v Fisher stated that the matter should be viewed OBJECTIVELY
2. Is the test of annexation established in Holland v Hodgson sufficient
3. 5. Contradictions
  1. Although the question of annexation is one of fact an not law, the courts have struggled to make this simple concept consistent and conclusive in their judgements
    1. In rare circumstances something which is not actually fixed to the land but which appears to form an integral part of it, may be regarded as forming part of the land for legal purposes
      1. Fixture DESPITE NOT being attached
        D’Eyncourt v Gregory
        The court were to decide whether just like Leigh v Taylor, if tapestries along with other items such as garden statues and staircase statues which were not cemented to the ground constituted a fixture or a fitting
        rejecting the view of judgment in Leigh v Taylor, the court held that the items were in fact fixtures as they formed integral part of the lands architecture
        Lord Romilly: It does not matter whether cement was used to fix these items or whether they were free standing of their own weight
        Does this more so eliminate the test of degree of annexation and the objective view of test but rather sway away and take a more subjective view on if the items are for the purpose
        QUESTION
        If a builder leaves materials that were left over from a statue much like those seen in D'eyncourt, are they fixed to the land as they form the basis of what constitutes the agricultural interest and purpose or are they mere fittings?
        Palumberi v Palumberi
        Two brothers upon sale on their flats disputed over items that were fittings to the home.
        It was held that the carpet was a fixture to the land, however the vernisan blind were chattels as their purpose was to be used as blinds.
        The contradiction here is the items are both for the athetotic pleasure of the land, however one could argue that the carpet is more firmly affixed to the land.
        HOWEVER: when a home is bought, the essential requirement that the owner needs is the floor boards and not the carpet which is is over it.
        Blinds are an subjective view, one person may not enjoy privacy as much as another, therefore a blind is a fitting which can be taken
        If the degree of annexation was completely objective then family portraits would remain in the land lords possession, which is not what they need. Therefore subjectivity of the intention of items is important to make the test less strict
        The basis of the decision is that the ornaments formed an integral part of the architectural design of the house on the property. Thus it appears that the existence of a master a “master plan” concerning the property may render items part of the land, even though there is no real annexation.
  2. CINEMA CHAIR CASES
    1. Lyon & Co v London City
      1. The cinema was repossessed and the question was whether the chairs were fittings, the claimants asked for the chairs to be re-delivered to them
        It was held that they were indeed fittings, Joyce J: the presumption of attachment may be rebutted by showing annexation is incomplete for the easy removal upon temporary use for the more complete enjoyment of use
        HOWEVER
        safety regulations would not allow cinema chairs to be improperly affixed. Chairs must be fully affixed to the floor. Joyce J deemed the degree of annexation of the chairs was incomplete
        Vaudeville v Muriset
        The cinema chair were affixed in the same way Lyon, via screws and complied with safety regulations. They could be removed without minimal damage
        However here it was held that these chairs were fixtures to the land as they were an integral part of the cinemas features
        If you take the art off the walls of a gallery it is just a piece of property, however if you take the seats out of a cinema it still remains a cinema
        6. Removal
        The owner of a land has the right to remove any item and it will return as a fitting
GIVE BOTH SIDES VIEWS AND DISCUSS THEN CONCLUDE

Siguiente

Descripción

Resumen del Recurso

Similar

	Creado por Jamie Roberts hace más de 8 años