In re De Falbe: CA 1901

The court referred to the originally unbending rule that everything affixed to the freehold was held to go with the freehold: ‘But in modern times there have come to be important exceptions to this rule, one being in favour of trade fixtures and entitling a person who has put up what are now called ‘fixtures’ (which means removable fixed things) for the purposes of trade to remove them.’ and ‘But the question is, whether they were not made ‘fixtures,’ meaning thereby objects fixed to the wall which might be removed at the will of the person who had fixed them.’ The exception included objects which had been affixed to the freehold by way of ornament.
Vaughan Williams LJ said that there was not to be an inquiry into the motive of the person who annexed the articles, ‘but a consideration of the object and purpose of the annexation as it is to be inferred from the circumstances of the case.’

Rigby LJ, Vaughan Williams LJ
[1901] 1 Ch 523
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’ . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 25 November 2021; Ref: scu.240416