In the problem scenario, there are faced with difficulties, where
about four weeks ago Laura purchased a freehold property, Ashgreen Manor from
Steven. Later arise issues where the operation of the trust of land, and how may
Steven overreaching provisions of the Law of Property Act (1925) as the
mechanism for regulating the fixtures and fittings. Laura needs an advice for
her claim against Steven.
The freehold property manor had a sundial and a wooden shed in the
garden, which removed by Steven. The legal freehold meaning is that the fee
simple absolute must be in possession, which is means that the new owner has
immediate right to enjoy the land.
Fittings are items of personal property. It is a principle of land
law that any fittings attached to land, become part of the land and are known
In the Law of Property Act 1925, s.205(1)(ix) land is defined as
“‘Land’ includes land of any tenure, and mines and minerals,
whether or not held apart from the surface, buildings or parts of buildings
(whether the division is horizontal, vertical or made in any other way) and
other corporeal hereditaments, also a manor, an advowson, and a rent and other
incorporeal hereditaments, and an easement, right, privilege, or benefit in,
over or derived from land…”1
Further explained in s62(3) of the same law.
“A conveyance of a manor shall be deemed to include and shall by
virtue of this Act operate to convey, with the manor, all pastures, feedings,
wastes, warrens, commons, mines, minerals, quarries, furzes, trees, woods,
underwoods, coppices, and the ground and soil thereof, fishings, fisheries,
fowlings, courts leet, courts baron, and other courts, view of frankpledge and
all that to view of frankpledge doth belong, mills, mulctures, customs, tolls,
duties, reliefs, heriots, fines, sums of money, amerciaments, waifs, estrays,
chief-rents, quitrents, rentscharge, rents seck, rents of assize, fee farm
rents, services, royalties jurisdictions, franchises, liberties, privileges,
easements, profits, advantages, rights, emoluments, and hereditaments
whatsoever, to the manor appertaining or reputed to appertain, or, at the time
of conveyance, demised, occupied, or enjoyed with the same, or reputed or known
as part, parcel, or member thereof.
For the purposes of this subsection the right to compensation for
manorial incidents on the extinguishment thereof shall be deemed to be a right
appertaining to the manor.”2
The test for whether a thing is a fitting or a fixture or part of
the land itself requires an examination of the degree to which the thing is
fixed to the land and the reason it was fixed to the land, one of the lead case
explain that in Holland v Hodgson (1872)
LR 7 CP 328.3
A mill owner bought looms to use in the mill. Looms attached with
wooden beams and connected to the stone floor. They could be easily removable. The
owner mortgaged the mill although could not maintain the payments and the mill
was taken back. Now the court made decision was whether the looms were fixtures
take as part of the land or whether they stay as fittings. It was held: The
looms had become fixtures and therefore formed part of the mortgaged land.
A fixture will belong to land owner always although a fittings may
belong to the other party of the sales. It is very important to make difference
between fixtures and fittings when the ownership of the property has been transferred.
Any items that are fixtures will belong to Laura. The ownership of the fixtures
transfers as soon as the contract of sale is binding and Steven cannot remove
these items from the land.
Where Laura as buyer has seen the sundial and the shed in the garden,
it is question that these items are fixtures or fittings.
Some case made by judges’ decisions already that are relevant
Look at first the sundial.
Also inside Ashgreen Manor, Laura was disappointed to discover
that a mural painted by a famous artist, Turnsborough, had been replaced with breezeblocks.
Poulett 1976 EWCA Civ 1 Court of
In Aug 1968 Lord Poulett sold his land to Effold Ltd. Effold Ltd
had agreed to sell part of the land, consisting of Hinton House, to Mr Berkley
should they succeed in purchasing the house at auction. Mr Berkley wished to
turn the house into a tourist attraction and wanted to keep as many of the
original features of the property. The completion of the sale was delayed and
did not take place until Nov 1968. During this period, Lord Poulett had sold
several items which Mr Berkley claimed were fixtures and thus title had passed
to him under the contract of sale. The disputed items consisted of several
valuable paintings which were set into oak panelling, a large marble statue of
a greek athlete which weighed half a tonne and rested on its own weight on a
stone plinth on the west lawn and a large sundial also resting on its own weight
outside the south wing.
The items were chattels. Scarman LJ indicated that the object of
annexation has greater significance than the degree of annexation. The
paintings were affixed for the better enjoyment of them as paintings and the
statue and sundials were also placed for the better enjoyment as chattels.
of Property Act 1925, s.205(1)(ix)
2 Law of Property Act 1925, s.62(3)
v Hodgson (1872) LR 7 CP 328