Land Law Essay: Doctrine of Quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit

This essay provides a comprehensive discussion of the doctrine of 'Quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit' within the framework of Land Law in England and Wales. It begins by introducing the Latin maxim and its evolution, tracing the concept of fixtures and their relationship to land ownership. The essay delves into the legal definition of land, as outlined in the Law of Property Act 1925, and explains how fixtures become part of the land. It analyzes the implications of fixtures in cases of land transfer, leases, and mortgages. Furthermore, the essay explores the complexities in determining when an object becomes a fixture, referencing key case law such as Elitestone v Morris, and examines the tests used to distinguish between fixtures and fittings. The importance of the degree and purpose of attachment, as well as the intention of the parties involved, is highlighted. The essay also addresses the distinction between objects resting on the land by their own weight and those considered fixtures, providing examples from cases like Holland v. Hodgson. Finally, the paper concludes by discussing the classification of buildings as fixtures and their significance in land law.

Running head: CORPORATION / BUSINESS LAW
Corporation / Business Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1CORPORATION / BUSINESS LAW
Introduction
‘Quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit’ is a Latin maxim, which implies the concept that the
thing, which is attached to the land, becomes part of it. The concept has its roots in the
Roman Law, which was to include the trees and crops to be part of the land while selling
land1. The maxim has evolved as to include fixtures to be a part of the land. Previously it was
concerned with the crops and trees but with the advancement of land law the scope of this
maxim has become wider. The idea of fixtures owes its inception to the maxim of ‘Quicquid
plantatur solo, solo cedit’. The ownership of the land includes the ownership of everything
that remains attached to the land2. An object, being movable in general sense becomes part of
the land once it becomes attached to the land. That object belongs to the person to whom the
land belongs3.
Once a movable object becomes attached to the land it becomes part of the land and loses
its separate identity as an object.However, fittings are movable objects but once it is affixed
to the land, it becomes a fixture. A fixture has a permanent attachment with the land but the
link connecting a land and a fitting is temporary in nature4. From its previous form, being a
doctrine concerning the crops and trees attached to the land, it has developed into an
important rule of land law, which covers the laws relating to tenancy and mortgage at
present.This paper will present a discussion of the doctrine of ‘Quicquid plantatur solo, solo
cedit’ in the context of Land Law in England and Wales, a critical analysis of the same and
the idea of land, fittings and fixtures in the light of this doctrine5.
1 Flynn, Michael. "The significance of the land/chattels distinction in an infrastructure context." Tax Specialist
20.5 (2017): 272.
2Achu, Fonja Julius. "A Critical Analysis of the Application of the Maxim Quicquid Plantatur Solo, Solo Cedit
Under Cameroonian Law." IUP Law Review 7.3 (2017).
3 Humphreys, E., 2018. Dilapidations case update. Journal of Building Survey, Appraisal & Valuation, 7(2),
pp.186-191.
4 Humphreys, Emma. "State of disrepair." Building Surveying Journal (2017): 19.
5Debruche, Anne-Françoise. "Unravelling The Legislator’s Tapestry: Judicial Needlework on Encroachment
Cases." Obscurity and Clarity in the Law. Routledge, 2016. 91-110.

2CORPORATION / BUSINESS LAW
Discussion
In general sense, land means the landforms covering the earth. However, the definition of
Land in the legal sense has been assigned a different approach. The definition of land has
been contained in section 205(ix) of the Law of Property Act 1925. Land includes the land
implying the ground, soil and earth,along with the buildings constructed upon the land,
fixtures affixed with the land, mines and minerals and airspace to a certain height. The land
law of England and Wales includes the land covered under water in the definition of land.
However, the water by which such land is covered is not considered to be land6.
The definition of land includes fixtures which remains permanently attached to it. It is
considered to be a part of the land in which it is attached. The concept of fixtures can be best
explained with the cases involving common law. The concept of fixtures can be analysed in
the light of the maxim ‘Quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit’. Movable objects when attached
to land is included in the definition of land under 205(ix) of the Law of Property Act 19257.
These objects, which have been included in the definition of the land by virtue of its
permanent attachment with the land are regarded as fixtures. The concept of fixtures may
have two implications8.
According to the first implication, in case of transfer of land, everything which is attached
or affixed with the land will pass on to the person to whom the land have been transferred.
The person obtaining the ownership of the land will be conferred with ownership of the
fixtures automatically. After the transferor has entered in to a contract for sale with the
transferee to sell his land, the transferor has no right to severe any fixture from that land. The
same will pass on to the transferee with the land, more precisely as a part of the land.
6 Bevan, Chris. Land Law. Oxford University Press, 2018.
7 The Law of Property Act 1925
8 Warner-Reed, Emma. Optimize Land Law. Routledge, 2016.

3CORPORATION / BUSINESS LAW
According to the second implication, in case of lease, the concept of fixture has the same
implication. A tenant may attach anything to the land he is occupying on lease so as to be
construed as fixture, but the moment the tenant attaches it to the land belonging to the
landlord, the same becomes the property of the landlord. The tenant does not possess the right
to severe the fixture he has attached to the land of the landlord at the end of the tenure of
lease.
Mortgage also considers the fixtures to be the part of land. In case of mortgage also the
mortgage of land will include the mortgage of fixtures attached to it. However, a movable
property will become the part of the land once it gets permanently attached to the land but the
question remains complicated exactly when the object has become a fixture or from which
instance it has acquired the permanence9. The concept of ‘Quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit’
has an easier application in theory, but its application in practical cases is a complicated
matter. The change in the status of a fitting to a fixture is best analysed under the case of
Elitestone v Morris10. The test concerning the movable property has become a fixture or not
has been assigned in this case. The chances of fittings to be converted and considered as
fixtures varies with the given situations. However, general idea regarding the same can be
conceived by the presence of two factors, namely, the extent of permanence of such
attachment and the reason for which the same has been attached.
The extent to which the affixation of the object has been made is an important factor in
determining the chances of object to become a fixture. The more permanently and firmly the
object is attached to the ground, the more likely it is to be construed as a fixture11.
9 Bailey, Veronica E. Cape Law: Text and Cases: Contract Law, Tort Law and Real Property. AuthorHouse,
2016.
10Elitestone v Morris (1997) 2 All ER 513
11 Rapacz, Max P. "Cribbet, Fritz, and Johnson: Cases and Materials on Property." DePaul Law Review 10.1
(2015): 226.

4CORPORATION / BUSINESS LAW
Another consideration required to construe fixture as a part of the land is the objective,
which has driven the affixation of the object to the land. The object must be affixed to the
ground with the intention of creating a permanent attachment to the ground.
These two tests are applied to determine whether the fitting is considered to be fixture or
not. The tests determines that whether the fixture will form part of the land to be included in
the definition of land. The physical attachment of the object to the ground is required to be
present to render it to be a fixture. A fixture must possess a permanent physical attachment or
affixation with the ground12.
However, if an object has been attached to the ground just to ensure the better enjoyment
of that object, then the object would not obtain the status of a fixture. The same can be
explained with the case of Leigh v Taylor13. In this case the tenant has attached expensive
tapestries in his drawing room. They remained attached to the land, but the House of Lords in
this case did not recognise the tapestries to be fixtures as the same had not been attached to
the land with the intention of forming the part of the land. It was rather decorative in nature.
Again in the case of Barkley v Poulett14, the court is of the opinion that the physical
attachment of an object must be backed by the object for which the affixation has been
effected. If both the requirement necessary for the object to be a fixture are not present, the
said object cannot be assigned the status of a fixture. The two tests of determining an object
to be a fixture needs to be considered while applying the theory of ‘Quicquid plantatur solo,
solo cedit’. In case the purpose of the affixation of the object to the ground refers to the
enjoyment of the object and no other purpose is assigned to such affixation other than the
same, the object cannot be construed as a fixture. However, the degree to which the physical
attachment exists will play an important role in the test of fixtures. If the object is attached in
12 Sayles, Victoria. Land Law. Oxford University Press, 2016.
13 Leigh v Taylor(1902)A.C 157
14 Barkley v Poulett(1976) 241 E.G 911

5CORPORATION / BUSINESS LAW
such a way that the removal of the same will result in a considerable amount of destruction to
the land, then it shall be considered to be a fixture irrespective of the purpose for which it has
been attached15.
Objects lying on the land do not form part of the land and retains its status as an object and
not fixtures. The articles lying on the ground does not becomes part of the land for being
attached to it by its own weight. That will not render them with the status of fixture for part of
the land. However, the same can be regarded as a part of the land if it was attached by its
weight to the ground with the intention to make it a part of the land. The same can be
illustrated with the case of Holland v. Hodgson16.
The case of Jordan v. May is concerned with the general rule that the object resting on the
land with its own weight will not be considered to be a fixture. In this case the question was
regarding the status of electric motor and batteries as a fixture. The court in this case is of the
opinion that electric motor is affixed to the ground with concrete making it a fixture, but
batteries are lying on the ground by virtue of its weight17. Hence, the batteries are not
considered to be fixtures.
However, an exception of the rule has been witnessed in the case of Hamp v. Bygrave18. In
this case, the transferor of a land was accused of removing several items from the land after
effecting the contract of sale, which includes stone ornaments and statues. The court
contended that those items though not properly attached to the land forms part of the land as
they have formed the part and parcel of the land. The statues and ornaments were installed for
the improvement of the land.
15 Bogusz, Barbara, and Roger Sexton. Complete Land Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Oxford University
Press, USA, 2015.
16Holland v. Hodgson(1872) LR 7 C.P 328
17 Maxwell, Tim, and Becky Shaw. "Questions of ownership." Property Journal (2016): 50.
18Hamp v. Bygrave(1982) 266 E.G 720

6CORPORATION / BUSINESS LAW
Buildings constructed upon land is a fixture, which forms the part of the land. It is because
buildings are affixed to the land in such a way that the removal of the same from the ground
would result in the destruction of the building. It cannot be severed from the ground without
destroying the building. The central consideration that needs to be present while determining
whether a building is a fixture or not is the capacity of the building of being removed without
demolition.
In the case of Holland v. Hudson, it was held that a building constructed upon a land
would continue to be a movable object if the same can be removed from the ground without
destroying the building. The fact that it has temporarily availed the main services attached to
the land including water and electricity is irrelevant. If the building is removable without the
demolition of the building then the building will fail to form the part of the land and will
remain a movable object.
Owing to the principle of ‘Quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit’, a fixture cannot be
removed by the owner of a land, who is selling his land to someone. The purchaser of the
land will acquire the right of ownership over the fixture along with the land. However, the
contrary may be allowed if the contract for sale requires such removal before delivering the
land. Similarly, the tenant cannot remove a fixture from the tenanted land at the end of the
tenure of tenancy. The fixtures becomes the property of the landlord and the tenant has no
right over the same after the termination of the tenancy. However, there are instances where
the tenant may severe the fixture at the end of the tenancy.
However, the tenant may remove a fixture, which was affixed by him on a land obtained
in lease, for the purpose of carrying on trade on the land. However, the same must be
conveniently removable. The same principle was followed in the case of Smith v. City
Petroleum19. In this case, the tenant was allowed to remove petrol pumps from the land which
19Smith v City Petroleum (1940) 1 ALL E.R 260

7CORPORATION / BUSINESS LAW
was held by him on lease for the purpose of business. Initially, the agricultural crops and
objects were regarded as the part of the land as the same remains attached to the land and the
agricultural land were not considered to be leased for the purpose of trade. Subsequently, the
with the advancement of land law, the contention has changed. The agricultural land are at
present regarded to be held for the purpose of trade.
Again in the case of Young v Dalgety Pls20, the tenant was allowed to remove fittings and
a carpet which was attached to the land by him for the purpose of carrying on business. In the
case of Botham v TSB Plc21, it was held that the objects that can be easily removed from the
land should not be considered as fixtures. Such objects includes carpets and curtains.
However, the things that cannot be easily removed from the land can be regarded as fixtures.
In the case of Chelsea Yacht and Boat Club v Pope22, houseboats were expressly excluded
from the definition of fixtures.
A tenant is also allowed to remove fixtures from the land if the same has been affixed with
the objective of decoration or is ornamental in nature. However, the removal of such fixtures
should not result in the demolition or destruction. This principle can be illustrated with the
case of Spyer v Phillipson23.
The principle relating to fixture is also followed in the case of mortgage. The land along
with the fixtures passes to the mortgagee from the mortgagor. It is irrelevant whether such
passing on of the fixtures have been mentioned in the mortgage deed or not. The fixtures that
are installed by the mortgagee, after the mortgage deed has been effected, but before the
delivery of possession to the mortgagee will also be passed on to the mortgagor.
20 Young v Dalgety Pls [1987]E.G.L.R 116
21Botham v TSB Plc [1997] 73 P & CR D 1
22Chelsea Yacht and Boat Club v Pope [2001] 2 All ER 409
23 Spyer v Phillipson(1931)2ch 183

8CORPORATION / BUSINESS LAW
In the case of Osho v Olayioye24, a tenant constructed a building on the land of the
landlord. The landlord has made several protests about the same, however, the building was
constructed. In this case the court was of the opinion that building will belong to the landlord
and the tenant had no right to claim the same at the end of the tenure of the lease. However,
in the case of Adebiyi v Ogunbiyi25, it was held that the structures built by the tenant in the
land of the landlord with the prior permission of the landlord will render a right of interest of
the tenant over that constructed part of the land.
The doctrine of ‘Quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit’ is one of the basic principles in the
land law of England and Wales. It has evolved as a common law doctrine. The doctrine
gained its authority of law from the judicial decisions given by the courts of England. The
fixtures are considered to be the part of the land and the rights over the same passes with the
rights over the land.
Conclusion
The application of the doctrine of ‘Quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit’, in common law
has evolved from the decisions of the court relating to the cases involving the ownership of
fixtures. The right of ownership of fixtures are bundled with the right of ownership of the
land. The transfer of land would imply the transfer of both the land and the fixtures attached
to it. The Law of Property Act 1925 also includes fixtures in the definition of land. A land
cannot be transferred without the transfer of fixtures attached to it. However, in certain cases
fixtures may be removed from the land if the same is provided in the contract for the transfer
of such land. The sanction of both the common law and the statutes renders this principle to
be one of the basic principles of land law. However, an object to be considered to be a fixture
needs to be firmly attached to the land and not merely lying on the land. The physical
24Osho v Olayioye (1966)
25Adebiyi v Ogunbiyi (1965).

9CORPORATION / BUSINESS LAW
attachment of the object with the land is necessary to be considered as a fixture. For instance,
loose bricks lying on the land will not be considered as a fixture. The same remains on the
land by virtue of its weight and is not attached to the land. However, the same bricks when
cemented to the land to form a concrete wall will come under the purview of fixtures. The
fixtures will form the part of the land as it remains attached to the land and not merely lying
on the land. The right over a fixture is bundled with the right over the land and the same
cannot be severed.

10CORPORATION / BUSINESS LAW
References
Books
Bailey, Veronica E. Cape Law: Text and Cases: Contract Law, Tort Law and Real Property.
AuthorHouse, 2016.
Bevan, Chris. Land Law. Oxford University Press, 2018.
Bogusz, Barbara, and Roger Sexton. Complete Land Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Oxford
University Press, USA, 2015.
Sayles, Victoria. Land Law. Oxford University Press, 2016.
Warner-Reed, Emma. Optimize Land Law. Routledge, 2016.
Cases
Adebiyi v Ogunbiyi (1965).
Barkley v Poulett(1976) 241 E.G 911
Botham v TSB Plc [1997] 73 P & CR D 1
Chelsea Yacht and Boat Club v Pope [2001] 2 All ER 409
Elitestone v Morris (1997) 2 All ER 513
Hamp v. Bygrave(1982) 266 E.G 720
Holland v. Hodgson(1872) LR 7 C.P 328
Leigh v Taylor(1902)A.C 157
Osho v Olayioye (1966)
Smith v City Petroleum (1940) 1 ALL E.R 260

11CORPORATION / BUSINESS LAW
Spyer v Phillipson(1931)2ch 183
The Law of Property Act 1925
Young v Dalgety Pls [1987]E.G.L.R 116
Journal Articles
Achu, Fonja Julius. "A Critical Analysis of the Application of the Maxim Quicquid Plantatur
Solo, Solo Cedit Under Cameroonian Law." IUP Law Review 7.3 (2017).
Debruche, Anne-Françoise. "Unravelling The Legislator’s Tapestry: Judicial Needlework on
Encroachment Cases." Obscurity and Clarity in the Law. Routledge, 2016. 91-110.Elitestone
v Morris (1997) 2 All ER 513.
Flynn, Michael. "The significance of the land/chattels distinction in an infrastructure
context." Tax Specialist 20.5 (2017): 272.
Humphreys, E., 2018. Dilapidations case update. Journal of Building Survey, Appraisal &
Valuation, 7(2), pp.186-191.
Humphreys, Emma. "State of disrepair." Building Surveying Journal (2017): 19.
Maxwell, Tim, and Becky Shaw. "Questions of ownership." Property Journal (2016): 50.
Rapacz, Max P. "Cribbet, Fritz, and Johnson: Cases and Materials on Property." DePaul Law
Review 10.1 (2015): 226.