fixtures and chattels
elitestone v morris test 1 degree of annexation
plaintiff thought that bungalow not a fixture because on concrete pillars but intented to be part of reality. they were wrong ...it would be impossible to move the b. without destroying it.its a fixture
The first test relates to the degree of annexation.
If the object is attached to the land then it is prima facie a fixture
Re Whalley
Purpose of items to make an Elizabethan room and therefore capable of being fixtures
Berkley v poulett
SKarman LJ : degree of annexation an object cannot be removed without damage or destruction to property - Fixture these included pictures, sun dail, statute pictures = c sun dial = c statute= though easy to remove from a plinth. the plinth was affixed and for architectural purposes
Hulme v Brigham - Degree of annexation test 1
heavy printing presses, which stood on the floor without any bolted attachment other than the force of gravity were chattels.
TSB Bank v Botham
if an object gives a room it's purpose then it's a fixture - Common sense approach / kitchen units fixtures but white goods such as refrigerators were chattels
D'eyncourt v Gregory
in a grand home you would expect certain artistic decoration to be part of the actual property tapestries, statues, 16 stone garden seats, curved kneeling figures. all fixtures= were fixed and for architectural purpose.
S.62 Law of property Act
States fixtures are included in the conveyance of land
Land is defined in the S.205(1)(ix) Law of Property Act 1925 as including:
'the surface, buildings or parts of buildings' and whatever is attached to the land, becomes part of the land.
Francis V Ibitoye
(Nigerian case)here the plaintiff and defendant were into a negotiations for purchase of land. the plaintiff without the consent of the buyer went ahead to build in the defendants land. unfortunately, the negotiations for the sell of land were turned down, the plaintiff sued for compensation of the building. court held that the defendant was not under any legal obligation to compensate the plaintiff.
Lomolo V Kilembe Mines ltd
(Trespasser carrying out improvements on the land) the Land owner has no legal obligation to compensate the person who attached a thing to his land.
chattels
rights to the property which do not pass with the conveyance of the land
Francis v Ibitoye
Materials used for constructing a house for example bricks are at one point chattels but when they are changed in a manner that they create a permanent wall, they cease to be chattels. There is no legal obligation to compensate a person who attaches something to land unless there is a contrary understanding.
Holland v hodgson - test 2 Purporse
spinning looms bolted to the floor of a factory were attached other by nails running through wooden beams, not hard to remove. blocks of stone placed one on top of another without any mortar or cement for the purpose of forming a dry stone wall would become part of the land, though the same stones, if deposited in a builder's yard and for convenience sake stacked on top of each other in the form of a wall, would remain chattels.
Leigh v Taylor - Annexation not enough to make it a fixture
tapestries were fixed to the wall HOL held that the purpose was for the better enjoyment of the Tapestries and not to make them part of the land
fixtures
the rights to the property which pass with the conveyancing of the land. "quic quid plantatur solo, solo cedit" means, "that which attaches to the land goes with it"
Ramesden v Dyson
this is where equity may intervene where the land owners assertion of legal rights is unconscionable. int his case Lord Cransworth stressed that for eguity to arise consider 2 things 1. the person must spend money or do some act in he belief that they are the land owner 2. the true owner is aware that at that tym the land belongs to him and the other Person is mistaken
lord Romillily MR - D'eyncourt v Gregory
what mattered isn't whether the item was fixed or rested by its own weight but whether something was properly part of the architectural design
