Hellawell v Eastwood: 1851

In considering whether an article was a fitting and could be removed from its locaion, the court looked to the mode and extent of annexation of the articles: ‘The only question, therefore, is, whether the machines when fixed were parcel of the freehold; and this is a question of fact, depending on the circumstances of each case, and principally on two considerations: first, the mode of annexation to the soil or fabric of the house, and the extent to which it is united to them, whether it can easily be removed, integre, salve, et commode, or not, without injury to itself or the fabric of the building; secondly, on the object and purpose of the annexation, whether it was for the permanent and substantial improvement of the dwelling, in the language of the Civil Law, perpetui usus causa, or in that of the Year Book, pour un profit del inheritance (a), or merely for a temporary purpose, or the more complete enjoyment and use of it as a chattel’.


Parke B


(1851) 6 Exch 295


England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedElitestone 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’ . .
CitedBotham and others v TSB Bank Plc CA 30-Jul-1996
A flat had been repossessed by the bank. The parties disputed whether items were fixtures and charged with the land or not.
Held: The judge had correctly analysed and applied the law of fixtures and fittings. The appeal failed save to a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.240421