Fixtures or Chattel ( Bens content)

What is the two step test

1. degree of annexation

2. purpose of annexation

Degree of annexation

• the person who is trying to prove that it is not that thing e.g. a chattel or fixture has the onus of proof Lockwood and Holland v Hodgson

When it is a fixture

• build and assembled on the land Elite stone v Moriss Lockwood Buildings v Canterbury Bank

• would be destoryed if removed “ “

• is invaluable to the land London Borough Tower of Hamlet v London Borough

When may be a chattel

• rests on itself Pottom

• is an object in itself

• it not valuable to the land

• can be removed easily

Purpose of annexation

• is from the perspective of a reasonable person with all the relevant background knowledge Mullish v BMI and Queenstown Central v March

chattel:

• can be removed easily pottan

• the purpose is for storage Queenstown Central v March

fixture:

• is attached/subject to a lease Elite stone

• allows for permanent residence

• machineary isntalled in the property leased to tenants Mullish v MBI

Queenstown Central v March

A mound of earth was left in storage on some land. It was carefully and evenly placed, covered in topsoil and grass which made it appear that the earth was part of the land.

A visual test is not in itself usually sufficient to ascertain whether something is a fixture or good.

Must have a common sense approach, taking all that is relevant into account. 

Appeared to be part of the land, however, considering the resource consent for ‘storage’, it was clearly intended to be a chattel. 

Potton Developments v Thompson

Potton manufactures large prefabricated units that are fully furnished which are hired or sold to the public. 

Manufactured almost entirely in a factory, and delivered by lorry and installed by a crane

Held: The units were chattels, not fixtures

Degree: 

They were nailed in and the exterior was ‘touched up’

Purpose: 

The units were prefabricated, and designed for easy delivery and removal as a whole.  

The touch ups were purely cosmetic, and although they appeared permanent, they were clearly not.

London Boroughs of Tower Hamlets v London Boroughs of Bromley

London council had been abolished and two authorities had been created, which contested ownership of a statue.

The statue had occasionally been removed to loan overseas.Held: it was a chattel, not a fixture

Degree of annexation

• Purpose is generally more important

• Sculpture rested on the ground by its own weight

Purpose

• Sculpture could be removed without damage or diminishing its inherent beauty. 

• It was important that the sculptures beauty was not dependant on the location it was placed 

Lockwood buildings v trsut bank canterbury

ockwood supplied kit homes to a franchise builder which was built on land that was subject to a mortgage owned by Trust Bank. 

The franchise owner also had a security over the showhome as personal property. 

Showhome was nailed to foundations, electricity and water were connected and sewerage was ready for simple connection. 

Builder and bank thought it was subject to the mortgage

Bank consented to the removal of an earlier showhome

Attachment was to intended in the ordinary course of events to be temporary

Held: it was a fixture (finely balanced)

Overall, the onus was on Lockwood Homes, and they did not do enough to discharge the onus that it was not a fixture and part of the land. 

→ onus is on the person saying it is a chattel 

Degree of Attachment

Showhome was affixed to the land ‘much more than slightly’

• Nailed to foundations

• Connections to water and electricity supplies

• Sewerage was ready for connection

→ assumption it is a fixture onus on Lockwood to prove it is a chattel 

Purpose of annexation

• Considered subjective intentions of the bank and builder

• Although attachment was to intended in the ordinary course of events to be temporary (min of 12 months) and intention was to promote sale of home

• Sale was possible, although not evident. 

Melluish v BMI

MI hired out equipment.

The equipment was installed into the ground and let to tenants.

The lease contained a term stating that the equipment remained the property of the appellant even if affixed to the local authorities’ land.

The machinery was attached to the land

What parties intended in the contract is irrelevant. 

To all outward appearances, it formed part of the land.

The test is objective- what a third party would consider whether the object is fixed to the land

Elitestone v Moriss

The absence of any physical attachment to the land was irrelevant.  The bungalow was a fixture, despite merely resting on its own weight.  Where it was constructed in such a way as to be removable, whether as a unit or in sections, it might remain a chattel, even though it was connected temporarily to mains services such as water and electricity. If a structure could only be enjoyed in its original place, and could not be removed to another site without destruction, there was a strong inference that the purpose of placing the structure on the original site was that it should form part of the realty at that site, and should therefore cease to be a chattel.