Lord Poulett sold the Hinton St George Estate to X, and X sub-sold the house and grounds to Y. Both transactions were subsequently completed. Y brought action against the executors of Lord Poulett, and the main question which subsequently arose was whether certain objets d’art were fixtures or chattels.
Held: None of them was a fixture, but also by a majority (Goff LJ dissenting) that, even though Lord Poulett had notice of the sub-contract between X and Y, Lord Poulett was not under a duty to Y to take reasonable care of the house because Lord Poulett did not hold the house as trustee for the sub-purchaser Y.
The court was asked whether some pictures, prints, a statue, and a sundial, each affixed to the land, had become fixtures or had remained chattels. If fixtures, they passed on the conveyance of the land; if chattels they did not.
Held: The modern answer to the question whether objects which were originally chattels have become fixtures, that is to say part of the freehold, depends upon the application of two tests: (1) the method and degree of annexation; (2) the object and purpose of the annexation. Here, the paintings had been hung for their better enjoyment, and were not fixtures. Neither the statue nor the sundial were physically attached to the realty, and remained chattels.
Lord Justice Scarman said: ‘If there is no physical annexation there is no fixture. Quicquid plantatur solo solo cedit. Nevertheless an object, resting on the ground by its own weight alone, can be a fixture, if it be so heavy that there is no need to tie it into a foundation, and if it were put in place to improve the realty. Prima facie, however, an object resting on the ground by its own weight alone is not a fixture. Conversely, an object affixed to realty but capable of being removed without much difficulty may yet be a fixture. Today so great are the technical skills of affixing and removing objects to land or buildings that the second test is more likely than the first to be decisive. Perhaps the enduring significance of the first test is a reminder that there must be some degree of physical annexation before a chattel can be treated as part of the realty. ‘
Stamp LJ said that the vendor ‘is said to be a trustee because of the duties which he has, and the duties do not arise because he is a trustee but because he has agreed to sell the land to the purchaser and the purchaser on tendering the price is entitled to have the contract specifically performed according to its terms. Nor does the relationship in the meantime have all the incidents of the relationship of trustee and cestui que trust.’
Stamp LJ, Scarman LJ, Goff LJ
[1976] EWCA Civ 1, [1977] 1 EGLR 86, (1977) 241 EG 911
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Re Whaley 1908
Items affixed to a room may become fixtures if the purpose of its affixing be that ‘of creating a beautiful room as a whole.’ . .
Cited – Lord Chesterfield’s Settled Estates 1911
Grinling Gibbons carvings, which had been affixed to a suit of rooms 200 years earlier, were held to be fixtures. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Scott v Southern Pacific Mortgages Ltd and Others SC 22-Oct-2014
The appellant challenged a sale and rent back transaction. He said that the proposed purchaser had misrepresented the transaction to them. The Court was asked s whether the home owners had interests whose priority was protected by virtue of section . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 September 2021; Ref: scu.245273 br>