Fixtures
Past Paper: 2017
Jim recently purchased “Blue Gables” from Tom. “Blue Gables” has an ornate 18 th century
plantation house and a garden which is surrounded by large Grecian columns labelled with the
names of the Greek gods. The Sale Agreement for the property contained no express provisions
regarding the status of these items. “Blue Gables” is currently being occupied by Bob, a tenant.
Jim expects to take possession of the property next month when Bob’s lease expires.
Advise Jim concerning his rights to the following:
(a) a large work-bench bolted into the floor of a garage at the back of the plantation house;
(b) brightly coloured Chinese tapestries which were stretched onto canvas and affixed by nails to
the dining walls of the plantation house;
(c) two large statues of Zeus and Apollo resting on stone plinths in the centre of the garden at
“Blue Gables”; and
(d) a wooden house bolted to a cement block foundation, fitted with a flush toilet and connected
to the sewer mains which is used to house guests.
Issue:
Whether specific items associated with "Blue Gables" are considered fixtures that must remain
with the property or if they are classified as chattel that Jim can claim or remove upon taking
possession of the property.
Rule:
The Latin maxim of "quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit" states that anything attached to the land
becomes part of the land. This Latin maxim reflects the legal concept that once an item is
physically affixed to the property, it is considered to be part of the real estate and will transfer
with the property in any subsequent conveyance unless explicitly excluded. In line with this
principle, items can be classified as fixtures or chattels.
In the case of Holland v Hodgson, the court developed two tests in order to determine whether an
item of property is a fixture or a chattel. These two tests were known as the degree of annexation
test and the purpose of annexation test.
The Degree of Annexation Test
According to the degree of annexation test, an object can be considered a fixture if it is attached
to land or a building in a substantial manner, such as by nails or screws. The more firmly or
irreversibly the object is affixed to the land or building, the more likely it is to be classified as a
fixture. In Holland v Hodgson, the court stated that an object only held in place by its own
weight and not physically attached to the land is generally considered to be a chattel. The case of
Berkley v Poulett stated that if an object cannot be removed without serious damage to or
destruction to some part of the realty, the case of it being a fixture is a strong one.
The purpose of Annexation Test
The status of an object is not conclusively determined by the degree of annexation. The case of
Berkley v Poulett stated that objects resting on their own weight may be considered fixtures if the
circumstances show that they were intended to form part of the landscaping or architectural
design of the premises. It is also an established principle that items that are substantially fixed to
the realty may nevertheless be regarded as chattels if the purpose of fixing them was not to
improve the land but to enjoy them as chattels and the degree of annexation was no more than
necessary to achieve that purpose.
Chattel Houses
The case of Mitchell v Cowie stated that there are two types of chattel houses in the Caribbean.
The first type is a wooden structure resting on its own weight upon a stone or brick base.
Applying the degree of annexation test, such a structure would be treated as a chattel given that it
is not affixed to the land, and it can easily be removed to another location without causing
damage to the land.
The second type of chattel house is affixed to the land in some way and, therefore, regarded as a
fixture.
The house in Mitchell v Cowie was constructed of hollow blocks standing on concrete pillars that
were embedded into the ground, and it was held to be a fixture. Similarly, in the case O’Brien
Loans Ltd v Missick, the house was resting on wooden beams, which we bolted at the four
corners to the four columns. The columns were made of concrete blocks resting on the ground,
with cement poured into the hollow spaces to hold them together, and the bolts were fixed into
the cement. There was also a flush toilet connected to a septic tank in the ground. However,
notwithstanding the degree of annexation to the land the court applying the purpose of
annexation test held that the house was a chattel. The main argument was that the owner of the
house being a yearly tenant had no intention to benefit the landlord by adding value to the land.
(a) Large Workbench Bolted into the Garage Floor
Application:
Degree of Annexation
The workbench is bolted into the garage floor, which indicates some degree of attachment.
However, while the workbench is bolted, it can be removed without causing damage to the
property, as a bolt can simply be unbolted.
Purpose of Annexation
The workbench can be seen as a permanent improvement to the garage, providing a dedicated
workspace. Since a garage is often a functional space used for tasks such as projects, repairs, and
storage, a workbench may have been placed there to facilitate these activities and, therefore, to
improve the overall usability of the garage. Also, bolting the workbench into the floor suggests
that the workbench may be meant to stay in place, as under normal circumstances, a workbench
can typically stand on its own weight without needing to be bolted. However, it can be argued
that a garage is primarily designed for parking cars, and placing a workbench in this space may
seem unfit and seen more as a matter of personal taste or as a hobbyist tool. Additionally, the
purpose of bolting it to the floor may have been for safety to prevent the workbench from
shifting while using it. Furthermore, the property is located on a plantation. A plantation should
ideally have separate spaces like a shed or a workshop designed for tasks such as repairs and
projects. Therefore, using the garage for this purpose would likely be a choice rather than a
necessity.
Conclusion:
Considering both the degree of annexation and the purpose of annexation, the workbench can
be considered a chattel. The degree of attachment is not permanent enough to classify as a
fixture, and the purpose seems to be a matter of personal taste.
(b) Brightly Colored Chinese Tapestries Nailed to the Walls
Rule:
In the case of Leigh v Taylor, the court found that tapestries which had been affixed to the walls
of a home using nails and tacks remained as chattel. It was stated that the tapestries were only
lightly attached to the walls, and this minimal level of attachment did not integrate the tapestries
into the structure of the house. Also, the tapestries were put up for the purpose of ornamentation
and personal enjoyment rather than with the intention of making them a permanent part of the
property.
Application:
Degree of Annexation
Similar to Leigh v Taylor, in this case, the Chinese tapestries are affixed to the walls of the
plantation house using nails, and the same principle applied in that case may be applied here. The
degree of annexation is minimal, as the tapestries are nailed to the wall without becoming part of
the house itself.
Purpose of Annexation
The fact that the tapestries are brightly colored Chinese tapestries is significant as they may not
align with the overall Greek décor of the property. It is stated that the property features a garden
which is surrounded by large Grecian columns labelled with the names of the Greek Gods,
emphasizing that there is a Greek aesthetic. Therefore, the inconsistency of the Chinese tapestries
with the Greek aesthetic of the property suggests that the tapestries may have been installed for
personal enjoyment as artwork rather than as a permanent feature meant to enhance the
property’s design. Also, the dining room will not be blank without it as you don’t go into a dining
room expecting to find these Chinese tapestries.
Conclusion:
Taking into consideration the degree of annexation and the purpose of annexation, the brightly
colored Chinese tapestries may be considered chattel. Drawing from Leigh v Taylor, the use
of nails for attachment is not substantial enough to integrate the tapestries into the structure of
the property. Additionally, the contrast of the Chinese tapestries to the Greek aesthetic of the
property indicates that they were installed for personal enjoyment rather than to enhance the
property design.
(c) Statues of Zeus and Apollo on Stone Plinths in the Garden
Rule:
In the case of D’Eyncourt v Gregory, the court determined that items integral to the architectural
design of the property could still be classified as fixtures even if they were not physically
attached or could be removed without causing damage. It was held that items such as lion
statues, which were not attached to the ground, were nonetheless fixtures because they were
essential to the property’s design rather than merely ornamental additions.
Degree of Annexation
Similar to D’Eyncourt v Gregory, the statues of Zeus and Apollo are not attached to the ground
but rest on stone plinths therefore, there is no degree of annexation.
Purpose of Annexation
The court in D’Eyncourt V Gregory emphasized that items that are integral to the design of a
property may be considered as fixtures even if they are not physically attached. Similarly in this
case, though there is no degree of annexation, the statues of the Greek Gods Zeus and Apollo can
be seen as integral to the overall architectural design of the property. It is stated that the property
contains Greek-inspired elements such as Grecian columns, therefore the Greek Statues may
have been placed to enhance this Greek aesthetic. Also their deliberate placement on stone
plinths in the center of the garden indicates a deliberate and permanent arrangement.
Conclusion:
Considering both the degree of annexation and the purpose of annexation, the statues of Zeus
and Apollo on stone plinths in the garden may be considered as fixtures. Although there is no
degree of annexation and the statues rest on their own weight, the statues can still be considered
as fixtures following the ruling in D’Eyncourt v Gregory, given that the statues add to the
architectural design of the property.
(d) Wooden House Bolted to a Cement Block Foundation, Fitted with a Toilet
and Sewer Connection
Rule:
In the case of Burke v. Bernard, the estate of a deceased individual argued for the right to remove
the wooden upper story of a house that was not permanently attached to the lower story. The
court ruled that this upper story was a fixture and could not be removed, as it was considered a
permanent part of the property.
Degree of Annexation
The facts of this case are similar to the case of O’Brien Loans Ltd v Missick given that the
wooden house in this case is bolted to a cement block foundation and fitted with a toilet and
sewer connection. In that case, the court held that even though a flush toilet in the house was
connected to a septic tank in the ground and the dement holding the hollow blocks together
showed some degree of annexation, the house could be relocated without causing significant
damage to the property and retained its identity after being moved which qualified it as a chattel.
Applying the same principle, the wooden house, in this case, can similarly be classified as
chattel. However, the wooden house may also be considered a fixture when taking into account
Burke v. Bernard, where the court found that the wooden upper story of a house, not
permanently annexed to the lower story, was still deemed a fixture and could not be removed.
This precedent suggests that even when a structure is capable of being separated from its base or
moved, it may still be classified as a fixture.
Purpose of Annexation
In O’Brien Loans v Missick, the main argument was that the owner of the house, being a yearly
tenant, had no intention to benefit the landlord by adding value to the land. However, the
principle in O’Brien Loans v. Missick may not fully apply in this context, as the wooden house in
question was placed on the property by the owner, not a tenant. The wooden house may be
considered a chattel if its placement was primarily for the owner's convenience or temporary use
rather than to permanently enhance the property. Bolting it to the foundation suggests stability
rather than permanence, and if it can be relocated without significant alterations, this further
supports its classification as chattel, indicating practical attachment without intent for
permanence. On the other hand, the purpose of annexation can also indicate that the wooden
house is a fixture if it was intended to be an integral part of the property. The fact that it is used
to house guests is significant to the fact that the house is meant to add to the property.
Conclusion:
Considering the degree and purpose of annexation, the wooden house bolted to a cement block
foundation and fitted with a toilet and sewer connection is more appropriately classified as
a fixture. Although the house is bolted and theoretically removable, it is integral to the property
as it is used to house guests. This indicates that the structure serves as a long-term component of
the property, enhancing its function and utility and aligning with the precedent in Burke v.
Bernard, which recognized that even separable structures could be considered fixtures due to
their integral role in the property. Thus, the wooden house can be deemed a fixture.