The distinction between chattels and fixtures is a crucial aspect of property law.

Fixtures

are items attached to land, becoming part of the realty, and belong to the landowner. The law of

fixtures is grounded in the Latin maxim “quicquid plantatur solo, solo credit”, translating to

mean that whatever is affixed to the land becomes a part of itand therefore belongs to the owner

of the soil. Chattels, on the other hand, are physical objects not legally attached to the land, even

if it is placed if it is placed in some close relation to it. An example of a chattel on the land might

be a refridgerator or stove in the kitchen, or a picture hanging on the wall. While the distinction

seems straightforward, its application can be complex. Two primary tests aid in this

determination: the degree and mode of annexation, and the purpose of annexation.

This test considers how an object is attached to the land. Generally, if an item is attached to

land or a building in a substantial manner, such as by nails, screws, or bolts, it is likely a fixture.

The more firmly or irreversibly an object is affixed, the stronger the case for it being classified as

a fixture. Conversely, an item resting on the land by its own weight is generally considered a

chattel.

In Holland v Hodgson (1872), looms attached to the floor of a mill by nails were deemed

fixtures. The court, per Blackburn J, stated that an article affixed to the land, even slightly, is

considered part of the land, unless circumstances show it was intended to remain a chattel. In

Elitestone Ltd v Morris (1997), a bungalow resting on concrete pillars was held to be part of the

realty. The court emphasized that a structure that cannot be removed without destruction is

intended to form part of the realty.

While the degree and mode of annexation provide a primary categorization, the purpose of

annexation can override this. This test examines whether the item was affixed for its more

convenient use as a chattel, or for the more convenient use of the land or building. Items attached
for their own use, rather than to improve the land, are more likely to be considered chattels.

In Leigh v Taylor (1902), tapestries attached to walls were held to be chattels. The court

reasoned that the attachment was necessary for their enjoyment as tapestries, not to enhance the

property. Botham v TSB Bank Plc (1997) involved a dispute over various items in a flat.

Bathroom fittings were deemed fixtures, intended to be permanent, while carpets, curtains, and

blinds were considered chattels, as their annexation was merely for their enjoyment as such.

In Botham v TSB Bank, Roch LJ outlined four indicators for determining whether an item is a

fixture or a chattel: 1. If the item is ornamental and the attachment is simply to enable the item to

be enjoyed (e.g., pictures), then this indicates it is a chattel. 2. The ability to remove an item

without damaging the fabric of the building indicates a chattel (e.g., a free-standing cooker). 3.

Ownership of the item: If the item is owned by someone other than the landowner (e.g., under a

hire-purchase agreement), it is less likely to be considered a fixture, unless the intent to effect a

permanent improvement is incontrovertible. 4. The identity of the installer: Items installed by a

builder (e.g., wall tiles) are more likely to be fixtures, while those installed by a tenant or

occupier (e.g., curtains) may not be.

The scenario involving Mr. Ram and Howard requires applying these principles to determine

the status of the items Howard removed. The issue is whether the bathtub, toilets, carpets, air

conditioning unit, and security gate installed by Howard are fixtures or chattels, and whether

Howard was entitled to remove them. The distinction between fixtures and chattels, and the tests

for determining this distinction, as discussed above, apply. The cases of Mitchell v Cowie (1964),

Burke v Bernard (1930), O'Brien Loans Ltd v Missick (1977), and Billing v Pill (1953), which

deal with chattel houses and similar situations, are also relevant.

These are likely to be considered fixtures. They are substantial installations, integral to the
function of the house, and their removal would likely cause damage. Applying the principles

from Elitestone v Morris and Botham v TSB Bank, these items are intended to be permanent and

for the better enjoyment of the property. Following the decision in Botham v TSB Bank, the

carpets in the bedrooms are likely to be classified as chattels. The status of the air conditioning

unit depends on the mode of its annexation. If it is a free-standing unit, it is likely a chattel. If it

is a split system with components permanently attached to the building, it may be a fixture. The

degree of damage caused by its removal will be a key factor. A security gate is likely to be

considered a fixture. It is attached to the property and intended to enhance its security, thus

benefiting the land. The case of Burke v Bernard supports this, where a structure attached to the

land was deemed a fixture due to the intention of permanence.

The case law highlight the complexities of determining the status of items, particularly in

situations involving tenants. Mitchell v Cowie emphasizes the importance of the intention behind

the annexation. O'Brien Loans Ltd v Missick acknowledges the context of tenant-installed

structures and a lesser intention to benefit the landlord. Billing v Pill illustrates a case where an

item was deemed a chattel due to its temporary purpose. While these cases deal with houses, the

principles can be applied to other structures and items. Howard's situation is distinguishable, as

he installed these items in an existing house, not as a primary structure. Mr. Ram is likely to

succeed in a claim against Howard for the removal of the bathtub, toilets, and security gate, as

these are likely to be classified as fixtures. He is less likely to succeed in a claim for the carpets,

which are more likely to be classified as chattels. The air conditioning unit's status depends on

the degree and purpose of its annexation.