The intention of the parties in affixing an object to land is only relevant to the extent that it can be derived from the degree and object of the annexation: ‘the intention of the parties as to the ownership of the chattel fixed to the land is only material so far as such intention can be presumed from the degree and object of annexation. The terms expressly or implicitly agreed between the fixer of the chattel and the owner of the land cannot affect the determination of the question whether, in law, the chattel has become a fixture and therefore in law belongs to the owner of the soil.’
Judges:
Blackburn J
Citations:
[1897] 1 Ch 182
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Approved – Reynolds v Ashby and Son HL 1904
Machines had been affixed to the premises. The court was asked whether they were caught by a fixed charge over the company’s land and fixed assets.
Held: The machines were fixed by bolts only and no damage would be caused to the building by . .
Cited – Elitestone Ltd v Morris and Another HL 1-May-1997
The plaintiff acquired land on which 27 chalets were erected. They served notice to quit so that the site could be developed. The defendants argued that they had residential tenancies with protection under the Rent Act 1977.
Held: The tenants’ . .
Cited – Dalkia Utilities Services Plc v Celtech International Ltd ComC 27-Jan-2006
The Court was asked to decide (i) which, if either, of the two parties to a 15 year agreement lawfully terminated it; (ii) whether, if one of them did so, it was by giving notice under a contractual termination clause or by way of acceptance of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land
Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.240414