One might have thought the distinction between chattels and fixtures was obvious at first sight. After all, Oxford Learner’s Dictionary defines chattels as ‘personal possessions that are not land and buildings’. While elsewhere it says fixtures are ‘fixed to a house … and we don’t take them with us when we move’.
Might This Have Something To Do With Intent?
The Law Teacher attempts to slice through the confusion, by suggesting we rely on whether the owner intended to attach their possession permanently to a building they owned at the time. For if that were to be the case, then it would become a fixture going forward.
Our reference site continues along the same lines, by suggesting a fixture was once a chattel. But has now become a part of a piece of land, assuming it is permanently attached. However, if we dig deeper it appears there is more to this than just that simple principle.
The HMRC Take on UK Fixtures and Chattels
The UK Tax Authority is an adroit gap-manager when it comes to definitions. Their guideline document CG76550 – Chattels leaves little room for confusion. The document lays down ‘A chattel is defined as anything which is tangible moveable property ’. And then cements matters by laying down these definitions:
TANGIBLE
A tangible object is something we could physically touch. However, the value may extend beyond the object itself, for example a piece of paper that happens to be a winning lottery ticket.
MOVEABLE
If an asset has not become part of a piece of land, or a building attached to it, then it is moveable. And importantly, it has a separate identity. However, HMRC says this would not be the case if ‘it is permanently or semi-permanently attached to the land or any building’.
PROPERTY
In the narrow sense, HMRC confirms a ‘property’ is a piece of land, plus any improvements thereon. However, if we extend the definition to chattels or fixtures, it becomes anything we could buy or sell.
Chattels and Fixtures by Degree of Attachment
Returning to our source for a moment, The Law Teacher explains how the method of attachment could be the deciding factor. The more permanent this is, it says, the more likely the chattel is to have become a fixture. This principle comes down to us from a case decided in 1872.
A contemporary judgement from 1859 focused more on the method of attachment. For example, it said an item attached to a wall with bolts and screws is part of the land. And moreover, this relationship is particularly powerful where the intention is to improve the value or usefulness of the land.
Fixtures, Chattels and Quicquid Plantatur Solo Cedit
The Latin words ‘quicquid plantatur solo cedit’ translate to ‘whatever is affixed in the soil belongs to the soil’. The general idea behind this is a purchaser of land should only acquire ownership over what is permanently part of it. Chattels are by comparison transient, and do not form part of a property transfer.
However, this principle does not provide a sufficiently tight definition for our underlying purpose. This is to determine which contents of a dwelling are separate from it, and can be passed individually to heirs of deceased estates for purposes of probate. Fortunately, as The Law Teacher explains, there are legal tests we can apply to determine whether a chattel has become a fixture or not.
Tests to Separate Out Chattels from Fixtures
It follows from the above examples that a temporary building placed without foundations, and resting on its own weight could be a chattel, at least initially and this also includes any fixtures inside it. However, the acid test derived from Mitchell v Cowie (1964) relates to the permanence of that object.
In Mitchell v Cowie (1964), the court agreed the following fixtures were included in the sale:
- An automatic car wash machine bolted to the ground
- Petrol station pumps, gas mains and related services
- Air conditioning units, and bathroom fittings etc
However, it determined that the following items were chattels;
- A cistern and a free-standing greenhouse
- A mobile home and sundry printing machinery
Two factors lead to the court making those decisions that have stood the test of time:
THE DEGREE OF ANNEXATION
The first criteria was the extent to which the chattel was permanently attached. Was it so firmly fixed to the land that removing it would cause significant damage?
THE PURPOSE OF ANNEXATION
The second criteria relates to the purpose of the person who placed the object. Did they intend the heavy statues in the garden to be permanent landscaping features for example? Or were they, like the refrigerator and dish washer temporary conveniences.
Valuable Fixtures Versus Fittings
There are no entirely hard-and-fast-rules or absolute laws in the principles of intention. However, we could probably say the Mona Lisa painting is a fixture in the Louvre, if they fixed it with brackets screwed to the wall. However, if they hung it on a Tesco picture hook, a thief might see it differently.
Preview Image: Mona Lisa (Leonardo da Vinci BY Public Domain)
