Real Property Law: Fixtures vs Chattel

Real Property Law: Fixtures vs Chattel

by Dellon-Dale BENNETT

​Fixtures

​A ‘fixture’ is any structure which is attached to the land, thereby becoming a part of the land. Additionally, it can be a piece of equipment or furniture that is fixed in position in a building or vehicle and is considered legally part of it so that they normally remain in place when an owner moves. It is important to know the distinction because it will determine what a tenant, for example takes when the tenancy is determined.

​Chattel

​A ‘chattel’ is a structure which does not form part of the land and can be removed easily. When it is removed it should not transform the character of the land.

Examples of fixtures

​(a) fireplaces

(b) water heaters

(c) light fixtures

(d) some appliances such as stoves and dishwashers, for example,

are commonly considered fixtures by virtue of being built into a

kitchen.

Examples of fixtures

The general idea is that if the items when removed will cause the property to change, then they are fixtures.

Examples of Chattels

(a) Machines standing unattached on a floor

(b) Power supplies that are connected by electrical wires to a building.

(c) Greenhouses that are moveable.

(d) Stone wall unattached by cement

(e) A zinc shed or store room, bolted to a concrete floor

​Development of the law on fixtures and chattels

​Whether a structure is a fixture or a chattel becomes very significant in matters relating to the effect its removal would have on the person who stands to benefit from its determination as a fixture for example a landlord, a beneficiary of an estate or a mortgagee.

​Development of the law on fixtures and chattels

The law of fixtures is grounded

in the maxim “quicquid plantatur solo solo cedit”, a Latin phrase which translates to mean that whatever is affixed to the land becomes a part of it and therefore belongs to the owner of the soil.

​Development of the law on fixtures and chattels

It therefore means that if anyone wants to dispute or rebut that general position, that person must satisfy the relevant tests as follows:

​

​1. Whether the chattel has become so attached that it can be classified as a fixture.

​

2. Whether or not the law would allow the owner of the chattel to remove what could otherwise be considered a fixture (discretionary)

Mitchell v Cowie [1964]

this case addressed the effect of the two tests:

“. . . It is essential not to confuse what are really two separate and wholly independent issues: the first, whether the thing in question is a chattel or a fixture: if it is a chattel . . . its owner may dispose of it without let or hindrance whenever he pleases: but if it is a fixture,then and only then, the second issue may be raised—whether it is subject to any right of removal.”

The TEST to determine whether something is a fixture or chattel

​There are two tests for determining whether an

object is a fi xture or a chattel:

​

(a) the degree of annexation; and

​

(b) the purpose of annexation.

The Degree of Annexation

According to this test, an article is a fi xture if it is attached to land or a building in some substantial manner, such as by nails or screws, and ‘the more fi rmly or irreversibly the object is

affixed to the earth or a building thereon, the more likely is the object to be classifi ed as a

fi xture’. On the other hand, Lord Blackburn (Holland v Hodgson) observed that when ‘the article in question is no further attached to the land than by its own weight, it is generally considered to be a mere chattel’.

The Degree of Annexation

Applying this test, it has been held that the following articles were fixtures: looms

bolted to the fl oor of a mill; an automatic car-wash machine bolted to the ground; gasoline pumps on a garage forecourt; gas mains and service pipes embedded in the soil; lockers tacked to a wall; panel doors; three-phase tubing. Items such as air conditioning units and bathroom fi ttings would also be fi xtures under this test.

The Purpose of Annexation

On the other hand, it has been held that ‘white goods’, such as an oven, a refrigerator and a

dishwasher, are not fi xtures, even if they are part of the overall design of a kitchen, because

they do not permanently improve it.

The Purpose of Annexation

For instance, objects such as marble statues or other garden ornaments resting by their own weight may be regarded as fi xtures, if the circumstances show that they were intended to form part of the landscaping or architectural design of the premises. On the other hand, it has been held that ‘white goods’, such as an oven, a refrigerator and a dishwasher, are not fi xtures, even if they are part of the overall design of a kitchen, because they do not permanently improve it

The Purpose of Annexation

for example, tapestries, display cases of stuffed birds fixed to a wall in a room, or a television cable and equipment. The nature of the premises may also be a relevant factor.