Land Law Assignment: Analysis of Fixtures and Chattels in Property Law

This Land Law assignment addresses the issue of distinguishing between fixtures and chattels in property law, focusing on the legal principles and case law that govern the characterization of objects within a property. The assignment begins by explaining the core concept of fixtures, citing the maxim 'quicquid plantatur solo cedit' and key cases like Holland v Hodgson (1872), which established the importance of the degree of attachment. It further discusses the 'gravity test' from Hulme v Bingham (1943) and the objective approach established in Gray v. Gray. The assignment then applies these principles to two scenarios: framed photographs attached to kennel walls and ornate light fittings in a dining room ceiling. The analysis considers the degree of annexation, intention, and the value added to the premises, ultimately concluding whether the items are fixtures or chattels based on legal precedents. The assignment references cases such as Rex v. Otley (1830), Botham v TSB Bank PLC (1996), and Leigh v Taylor [1902] to support its conclusions.

Running head: LAND LAW
Land Law
Name of the student
Name of the university
Author note

1
LAND LAW
Issue
The issue in the case is to determine the character of the objects which are present in the
property, whether they are fixtures or chattels.
Rule
The law of fixtures in property law is found with the Maxim ‘quicquid plantatur solo
cedit’. This means that whatever is attached to the land becomes a part of the land, therefore
chattels which are fixed to the land also become its parts and lose its character as a chattel and
passes with the ownership of land to the new owner.
In the case of Holland v Hodgson (1872), it had been ruled by the court that the
difference between a chattel and a fixture is determined by analyzing the degree to which the
thing is physically attached to the land. A think which is more permanently and less irreversibly
attached to a land is likely to considered as a fixture.
In the case of Wiltshear v Cottrell (1853) 1 E & B 674 and Walmsley v. Milne (1859)
it had been ruled by the court that when a thing is attached to the premises in order to enhance its
value it is to be regarded as a fixture.
The gravity test as provided in the case of Hulme v Bingham (1943) KB 152 stated that
any heavy machinery which is not attached to the land but lies because of its own weight is
considered as a chattel. In Botham v TSB Bank PLC (1996) it was stated by the court that
appliances which remain in position because of their own weight or are fixed electrically are to
be considered as chattel.

2
LAND LAW
However, it had been ruled by the court in the case of Gray v. Gray, 947 So 2d 1045 that
an objective view must be taken to determine whether a thing is a fixture or a chattel. If an object
has been attached irrespective of the degree, the intention for the thing to be attached
permanently and enhancing the value of the land would make it a fixture.
The objective test is therefore essential towards determining whether an object is a chattel
or a fixture like in the case of Rex v. Otley (1830) 1 B. & Ad. 161 a wooden mill was not
considered as a fixture and in Wansborough v. Matson (1836) a wooden barn was not held to
be a part of the realty.
However, in the case of Snedeker v. Warring, 2 Kernan 178 it had been ruled by the
court that where an object has been fixed firmly to the land because of gravity by cement or
clamps, its statues would be decided by the intention of its erection.
Application
Firstly the characteristics of four framed photographs of celebrities who have boarded
their pets at the kennels, which are securely attached to the walls in the entrance area to the
kennels, have to be determined. According to the above discussed laws what has been clear that
anything which is attached to the land in a permanent manner becomes a fixture. Therefore the
framed photographs which have been securely attached to the kennel would be deemed as a
fixture. However in the given situation the intention of the party to permanently affix the fixtures
have and the value which the fixture adds to the premises is also to be considered in order to
determine the character of the object.
In above discussed case of Rex v. Otley a wooden mill was not considered as a fixture
but a chattel as there was no intention to get it fixed to the land. however not always is physical

3
LAND LAW
attachment an comprehensive evidence for the court to determine whether an object is a fixture
or a chattel the court takes into consideration the object of annexation and the degree of
annexation as provided through the case of Leigh v Taylor [1902] AC 157. Thus through the
application of this test it can be state that the degree of annexation of the photo frames are not
high and the object also cannot be said to be permanent annexation and therefore it can said that
the photo frames are chattels.
In relation to six ornate light fittings which had been fitted into recesses in the house’s
dining room ceiling the clear test which have been provided through the case of Botham v TSB
Bank PLC can be applied. This case it had been ruled by the court that objects which have been
attached electrically to the premises would be considered as chattels. As the lightings are
attached electrically to the ceiling they are to be considered as chattels.