Objects brought onto land may be chattels. Alternatively, they may become part of the land. An object may become part of the land because it has been physically attached to it. However, some objects become part of the land even though they are not fixed to it and only rest on their own weight.
As a matter of law, fixtures pass with the realty. Consequently, the issue of whether an item is a chattel or a fixture is relevant when land is sold or let. It is also relevant if an occupier claims to have a residential tenancy protected by the Housing Act 1988.
Objects brought onto land may be chattels. Alternatively, they may become part of the land. An object may become part of the land because it has been physically attached to it. However, some objects become part of the land even though they are not fixed to it and only rest on their own weight.
As a matter of law, fixtures pass with the realty. Consequently, the issue of whether an item is a chattel or a fixture is relevant when land is sold or let. It is also relevant if an occupier claims to have a residential tenancy protected by the Housing Act 1988.
The litigation in Tristmire Ltd v Mew [2011] EWCA Civ 912; [2011] PLSCS 208 concerned houseboats. A boat that floats, that can be untied from its moorings and disconnected from any services without damaging it or the fabric of the land, is a chattel: Chelsea Yacht & Boat Co Ltd v Pope [2001] 2 All ER 409. None the less, the occupiers claimed that they were assured tenants because their houseboats had become part of the land. They had been raised on to a structure supported by the harbour bed. The boats were unable to float and were surrounded by a wooden walkway.
The occupiers argued that the boats would be damaged if they were moved – and, in one case, that the surrounding structure would be damaged as well. They relied on Elitestone Ltd v Morris [1997] 2 EGLR 115; [1997] 27 EG 116, where the House of Lords ruled that a wooden bungalow that rested on pillars by its own weight, but that could not be removed without destroying it, had become part of the land.
The question of whether a chattel has become part of the realty is a question of fact. Many different tests have been suggested to determine whether an object has become part of the realty. The period of time during which an item will remain in position, the method and degree of its annexation, what was to be done with it, and the function to be served by its annexation may all be relevant. However, the courts tend to focus on whether the object was fixed to the land for the better enjoyment of it as a chattel, or whether it was fixed to the land to effect a permanent improvement to the freehold.
The Court of Appeal decided that the occupiers had raised the houseboats onto supporting platforms (which belonged to the harbour company) to use them more conveniently – and not for the use and enjoyment of the harbour bed. The houseboats fell into a category of items such as caravans which, as designed, are moveable and the fact that they had fallen into disrepair, and could not now be removed without disintegrating, was not relevant to the question of whether they had been attached to the realty. Consequently, the houseboats did not form part of the realty and the occupiers were not assured tenants.
Allyson Colby is a property law consultant
