The difference between a fixture and a chattel is not merely of academic interest – it has important practical implications, as Philip Roberts explains
For property professionals, the law relating to fixtures and chattels means answering some unnecessarily abstract questions, such as “what is property?” or “how does something become property?”. Although these issues appear theoretical, the way in which they are addressed can have practical implications. The law relating to fixtures and chattels may have ancient origins, but it remains relevant.
The courts have not always been consistent in distinguishing between fixtures and chattels, nor have they used consistent terminology. This article discusses when to draw the distinction, the proposed tests and why this is of practical importance. First, it is necessary to dispense with a frequently occurring term, namely “fittings” – as in “fixtures and fittings”. Although it is commonly used, it has no legal significance – and it may confuse.
Basic distinction
When classifying something as a fixture or a chattel we are usually dealing with items that have been brought onto land. Objects may have been brought onto premises by tenants (and perhaps the question of their classification arises at the end of the lease) or a selling freeholder may want to remove items on sale that the buyer contends “go with the property” and to which he or she is therefore entitled.
In other words, the basic practical distinction between fixtures and chattels is that if an object is a fixture it is treated as forming part of the land, whereas a chattel retains its independence from the land. In the latter case, for example, the object will not pass to a purchaser with the sale of a property.
Although this is the general rule of law, it is normally open to parties in a property transaction to specify whether certain items will remain or will be removed prior to completion. Difficulties arise when the general law is applied in circumstances where these matters have not been properly documented.
Tests and guidance
The courts use two tests to determine the status of an object. The first concerns the “degree of annexation” to the land, namely how firmly the object is fastened or affixed to the property. The greater the degree of annexation or physical connection, the more likely it is that the object will be a fixture. For some objects – a house built on the land, for example – annexation is self-evident. If the object cannot be removed without being destroyed, it is unlikely to be a chattel.
In Elitestone Ltd v Morris [1997] 27 EG 116, the court had to decide whether a wooden bungalow that was not attached to the land was a fixture or a chattel. It was held to be a fixture. In contrast to, say, a greenhouse, which could be taken down and re-erected elsewhere, the bungalow could be removed only by being demolished. The purpose of bringing timbers onto the land was to make the structure part of the land. The concept of purpose is central to the second test.
This is more conclusive than the first. It arose partly because, as Lord Scarman pointed out in Berkley v Poulett (1976) 241 EG 911; 242 EG 39, techniques for affixing and removing objects have become more sophisticated, diminishing the importance of the first test. If the object has been annexed to improve or to increase the enjoyment of the property, it is likely to be a fixture; if it is fixed to the property “for the better enjoyment of the object as a chattel”, it is more likely to be a chattel. So, a central-heating system can be identified as a fixture; a picture, even if securely affixed, may simply be a chattel: see Leigh v Taylor [1902] AC 157, although Berkley discussed a situation in which pictures can form part of a room design and be classed as fixtures.
The relationship between the two tests is difficult to interpret. Generally, although the degree of annexation is a factor in classifying objects, the second test is decisive and can override the outcome of the first.
Refining the distinction
Older cases that set out the two tests. have suggested that the parties’ intention when affixing an item should be taken into account as a separate issue. This element of subjectivity was reduced by later decisions: intention is relevant only to the extent that it can be derived from the degree and purpose of annexation. It cannot affect the question of whether, at law, an object is a fixture or a chattel.
Modern sources have sometimes referred to a third category of object. Items brought onto premises can be classified as chattels, fixtures or “part and parcel of the land itself”. Although the application of the two tests can lead an item to fall into either of the last two categories, fixtures are distinguished from the third category in that they are capable of being removed from the property without causing substantial damage either to the item or the property. If something is part and parcel of the land, it cannot be removed without losing its usefulness and damaging the property. The issue of removability leads to a further refinement of the concept of a fixture.
A fixture is treated as being part of the land and will pass with the land. As originally formulated, this rule created difficulties for tenants. They may have affixed trade or ornamental fixtures to the property that, at the expiry of the lease, they would lose. The courts therefore mitigated the rule. Tenants have the right to remove “tenant’s fixtures” (usually installed for business or ornamental purposes), on condition that they make good any damage arising from the removal: see Mancetter Developments Ltd v Garmanson Ltd [1986] 1 EGLR 240.
This subdivision of “fixtures” has given rise to another confusing term: “landlord’s fixtures”. Perhaps the best interpretation of this is that it refers to those fixtures annexed to the land by the landlord during the tenancy. Confusingly, though, it has also been used to refer to non-trade (non-removable) tenant’s fixtures and to those items that have become part and parcel of the land: see Hill & Redman: Law of Landlord and Tenant A[3748].
Practical implications
The issue of how an object is classified is not merely of academic interest. It is highly relevant in determining the extent of land sold or leased. In addition, the distinction is important in the context of mortgages, for example when determining whether items are subject to a bank’s mortgage: see TSB Bank plc v Botham [1996] EGCS 149 for an illustration of the classification of everyday items, such as bathroom fittings (fixtures, so subject to the mortgage) and light fittings (chattels).
Any matter where the extent of a right or obligation in connection with property may require an understanding of the distinctions described.
Philip Roberts is a senior lecturer at Northumbria University
|
Further reading |
|
Berkley v Poulett (1976) 241 EG 911; 242 EG 39: A useful case in which the fixture/chattel distinction was applied to classify “treasures” of a stately home (see Lord Scarman’s judgment for the evolution of the distinction) Elitestone Ltd v Morris [1997] 27 EG 116: A modern statement of the principles governing classification of objects Hill & Redman: Law of Landlord and Tenant (Eds Michael Barnes, Paul Matthews, Timothy Harry, Nicholas Taggart, Joanne R Moss and John Furber), Butterworths: see A[3746] to A[3761] Wessex Reserve Forces & Cadets Association v White [2005] EWCA Civ 1744; [2006] 13 EG 142: An up-to-date case summarising the principles in the context of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 Woodfall: Landlord and Tenant (eds Paul Morgan QC, Jonathan Brock QC, Nicholas Dowding QC and Martin Rodger), Sweet & Maxwell:see 13.133 to 13.168 for general law of fixtures: 13.137 provides an overview with examples of the categorisation of certain items |
|
Why this matters |
|
Deciding whether an object taken onto property forms part of the property (as a fixture) or remains independent of the property (as a chattel) is important in determining the scope of the rights and obligations of the parties in property transactions. In the absence of documentation dealing with the point, the determination must be made against the background of developing case law. The question of whether an object is a fixture or chattel often falls to be settled in the context of leasehold law. For example, unless the obligation is qualified in some way, the general position will be that fixtures rather than chattels fall within the scope of repairing obligations. When premises are subject to a lease, the class of fixtures is further subdivided into tenant’s fixtures: it is important to identify these items (usually employed for the purpose of trade or ornament) because, unlike other fixtures, a tenant has the right to remove them during or at the end of the term. Tenant’s fixtures and so-called “landlord’s fixtures” have been considered in the context of rent review. Determination of open market rent has depended upon whether items were tenant’s fixtures (not taken into account, since removable) or landlord’s fixture’s (taken into account: Young v Dalgety plc (1986) 281 EG 427). Whole structures have been subject to the question whether they are fixtures or chattels. In Elitestone Ltd v Morris [1997] 27 EG 116, the issue was whether occupants of a bungalow held a Rent Act-protected tenancy: if the bungalow was a fixture, they did, and if a chattel, they did not. Under the circumstances, applying principles from case law, it was held that the bungalow was a fixture. Wessex Reserve Forces & Cadets Association v White [2005] EWCA Civ 1744; [2006] 12 EG 142, considered whether items (namely huts) were tenant’s fixtures for the purposes of a landlord’s success under ground (f) of section 30(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. Since they were classified as tenant’s fixtures, the tenant rather than the landlord (as is required for ground (f)) would, in all probability, have to remove them at the end of the lease. The landlord therefore failed. |
