No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The law of fixtures and chattels: recalibration, rationalisation and reform
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 December 2021
Abstract
This paper examines the law of fixtures and chattels which governs the circumstances in which items of personal property that are attached to land become part of that land. Whether a chattel has become a fixture is crucial in a range of contexts including when land is sold or mortgaged. However, the law of fixtures has long garnered a reputation for complexity and obscurity; a position that endures today. Through examination of historical accounts and decided case law, this paper explores the reasons for this reputation; identifies the central deficiencies and defects inherent in the law and argues that the existing approach is anachronistic, inconsistent and incoherent. Building on this, the paper concludes by proposing a new framework for rationalisation and reform which would bring long-overdue certainty and clarity to the law in this area.
Keywords
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Society of Legal Scholars
References
1 On which see generally Megarry & Wade: The Law of Real Property (Sweet & Maxwell, 9th edn, 2019) ch 22.
2 See Luther, P ‘Fixtures and chattels: a question of more or less…’ (2004) 24(4) OJLS 597CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Haley, M ‘The law of fixtures: an unprincipled metamorphosis’ (1998) Conveyancer and Property Lawyer 137Google Scholar.
3 LPA 1925, s 62(1); this provision replaced s 6 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act 1881, which had a similar effect. Section 62 applies to all conveyances of land made after 31 December 1881: s 62(6); the Law of Property Act 1925, s 205(1)(ii) defines ‘conveyance’ as including, ‘a mortgage, charge, lease, assent, vesting declaration, vesting instrument, disclaimer, release and every other assurance of property or of an interest therein by any instrument, except a will…’
4 This is known as the right to remove fixtures; see discussion in Megarry, above n 1, at [22-011]–[22-022].
5 Specific rules and exceptions have developed in the law that allow trade, ornamental and agricultural fixtures.
6 (1872) LR 7 CP 328.
7 Ibid, at 334.
8 Ibid, at 335.
9 Riverside Park Ltd v NHS Property Services Ltd [2016] EWHC 1313 (Ch), [2017] L & TR 12 at [33]–[34] per HHJ Saffman.
10 See, for example, engagement of both tests in Tower Hamlets LBC v Bromley LBC [2015] EWHC 1954 (Ch), [2015] 7 WLUK 214.
11 Berkley v Poulett [1977] 1 EGLR 86 at 89; see also Hamp v Bygrave [1983] 1 EGLR 174 at 177: ‘the purpose of the annexation is now of first importance’ per Boreham J; see also TSB Bank plc v Botham (1997) 73 P & CR D1 at D2.
12 Dill v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities & Local Government [2020] UKSC 20, [2020] 1 WLR 2206 per Lord Carnwath at [40]–[44].
13 Holland v Hodgson, above n 6; HE Dibble Ltd v Moore [1970] 2 QB 181; Deen v Andrews (1985) 52 P & CR 17.
14 Elitestone Ltd v Morris [1997] 1 WLR 687; Elwer v Maw (1802) 3 East 38.
15 Berkley v Poulett, above n 11, at 88 per Scarman LJ.
16 Deen v Andrews, above n 13, at 22.
17 Elitestone Ltd v Morris, above n 14, at 698 per Lord Clyde.
18 Woodfall, Landlord and Tenant (looseleaf) vol 1, para 13.131.
19 This classification has also since been applied in Chelsea Yacht & Boat Co Ltd v Pope [2000] 1 WLR 1941 and in Wessex Reserve Forces & Cadets Association v White [2005] EWHC 983 (QB), [2005] 5 WLUK 519.
20 Elitestone Ltd v Morris, above n 14, at 690 per Lord Lloyd.
21 Luther, above n 2, at 597.
22 Gray and Gray Elements of Land Law (London: Butterworths, 3rd edn, 2000) at 45, 51.
23 Luther, above n 2, at 597.
24 See, for example, Haley, above n 2.
25 Holland v Hodgson, above n 6, at 335 per Blackburn J.
26 Ibid.
27 Re De Falbe [1901] 1 Ch 503, at 536.
28 A case which reached the House of Lords as Leigh v Taylor [1902] AC 157, [1902] 2 WLUK 24.
29 Lord Chesterfield's Settled Estates [1911] 1 Ch 237.
30 Hulme v Brigham [1943] KB 152, a case involving a dispute between a mortgagor and a mortgagee.
31 Fahstone Ltd v Biesse Group UK Ltd [2015] EWHC 3650 (TCC), 164 Con LR 121.
32 Berkley v Poulett, above n 11.
33 Ibid, at 913 per Scarman LJ.
34 Hamp v Bygrave, above n 11.
35 D'Eyncourt v Gregory (1866) LR 3 Eq 382.
36 Elitestone Ltd v Morris [1995] 7 WLUK 361.
37 Spielplatz Ltd v Pearson [2015] 2 P & CR 17.
38 Webb v Frank Bevis Ltd [1940] 1 All ER 247.
39 Billing v Pill [1954] 1 QB 70.
40 Gilpin v Legg [2017] EWHC 3220 (Ch).
41 Chelsea Yacht & Boat Co Ltd v Pope, above n 19.
42 Mew v Tristmire Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 912; see also Hale v Watt LTL 11/3/2016, where a houseboat was also found to amount to a chattel.
43 Herlankenden's Case (1589) 4 Rep 62a.
44 Cave v Cave (1705) 2 Vern 508.
45 Australian Provincial Assurance v Coroneo (1938) 38 SR (NSW) 700.
46 Belgrave Nominees Pty Ltd v Barlin-Scott Airconditioning Pty Ltd [1984] VR 947.
47 Ibid, at 951 per Kaye J.
48 Amos & Ferard Treatise on Fixtures (1st edn, 1827).
49 Ibid, p xxi.
50 Monti v Barnes (1901) 1 QB 205 at 207 per Smith MR.
51 Berkley v Poulett, above n 11, at 913.
52 See dicta of Sir Richard Scott in Botham v TSB Bank plc (1997) 73 P & CR D1.
53 See discussion of D'Eyncourt v Gregory above.
54 See Haley, above n 2.
55 Norton v Dashwood [1896] 2 Ch 297.
56 Bain v Brand (1876) AC 762.
57 Re Whaley [1908] 1 Ch 615.
58 Berkley v Poulett, above n 11.
59 Spyer v Phillipson [1931] 2 Ch 183; Elitestone Ltd v Morris, above n 14.
60 On which, see Haley, above n 2, at 137–144.
61 Botham, above n 11, at D3.
62 This ‘objective determination’ is explored and challenged discussed below.
63 See for example Viscount Hill v Bullock [1887] 2 Ch 482; dicta Lord Clyde in Elitestone Ltd v Morris, above n 14, at 698.
64 Haley, above n 2, at 144.
65 Ibid.
66 D'Eyncourt v Gregory, above n 35, at 391.
67 Ibid, at 396.
68 Megarry & Wade, The Law of Real Property (3rd edn, 1966).
69 Re De Falbe, above n 27, per Rigby LJ at 531–532.
70 In Re Whaley [1907 W 3120], [1908] 1 Ch 615.
71 Ibid, at 619–620.
72 Berkley v Poulett, above n 11, at 89.
73 Kennedy v Secretary of State for Wales [1996] EGCS 17.
74 Tower Hamlets LBC v Bromley LBC, above n 10; on which see Iljadica, M ‘Is a sculpture “land”? London Borough of Tower Hamlets v London Borough of Bromley [2015] EWHC 1954 (Ch)’ (2016) Conveyancer and Property Lawyer 242Google Scholar at 250.
75 Tower Hamlets LBC v Bromley LBC, above n 10, at [17].
76 Ibid, at [10], citing the words of Pat Hardy, curator of painting, prints and drawings at the Museum of London.
77 D'Eyncourt v Gregory, above n 35, per Lord Romilly MR at 392–393.
78 Holland v Hodgson, above n 6, per Blackburn J at 334–335.
79 Ibid, at 335.
80 Luther, above n 2, at 615.
81 Holland v Hodgson, above n 6, per Blackburn J at 335.
82 Luther, above n 2, at 617.
83 Hobson v Gorringe [1897] 1 Ch 182.
84 Ibid, at 193.
85 Melluish v BMI [1996] AC 454.
86 Elitestone, above n 14, at 693; for a discussion of this case see Conway, H ‘Elitestone Ltd v Morris’ (1998) Conveyancer and Property Lawyer 418Google Scholar at 426.
87 Wessex Reserve Forces & Cadets Association v White, above n 19.
88 Spielplatz Ltd v Pearson, above n 37.
89 Riverside Park Ltd v NHS Property Services Ltd, above n 9.
90 Luther, above n 2, at 618.
91 An example of a third-party dispute would be sale of land where dispute arises as to the status of an item attached to that land.
92 Lockwood Buildings Ltd v Trust Bank Canterbury Ltd [1995] 1 NZLR 22.
93 Ibid, at 29.
94 Ball-Guymer v Livantes (1990) 102 FLR 327.
95 P Butt ‘What is a fixture?’ (1997) 71 ALJ 820 at 821.
96 National Australia Bank Ltd v Blacker (2000) 179 ALR 97.
97 Ibid, at [12].
98 Ibid.
99 Luther, above n 2, at 597.
100 Ibid, at 598–600.
101 Haley, above n 2, at 144.