Iycee Charles de Gaulle Summary Laura the impression that all the contents

Laura the impression that all the contents

Laura has purchased a new property from Steven
and was disappointed to find some items were missing upon moving in. Whether or
not Laura has a claim against Steven is based on if the items in the property
are to be deemed as Fixtures or Fittings (Chattel). Does Laura have rightful
ownership of whatever was part of the property Purchased?  Before purchasing the property, Laura was
under the impression that all the contents of the property would remain the
same, However, there are different opinions to this point of view. Laura may
have a claim against Steven regarding the purchase of her property and what was
meant to be included upon purchase. Laura’s initial response to her new
purchase was that there were some items that are missing from the property. This
case demonstrates the idea of fixtures and fittings (chattels). “Fittings, which are also known
as Chattels are items
that are personal property. It is a principle of land law that any chattels attached to land, become part
of the land and are known as fixtures
(where it becomes part of the land).”


Laura has purchased the AshGreen Manor
property from Steven, making her the legal owner to the property. We must first
identify the relevant facts of the case, as to what can be regarded as property
of the current land owner (Laura) and what is the property of the previous
owner. The items in question are a sundial which has been removed from the
property, the wooden shed from the garden, which has been destroyed. Also, a Mural
painting that had been painted by a famous artist, Turnsborough, which had been replaced by
breeze bricks.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now


The Law of Property Act (1925) has a few points that can be used to address this
case matter. It mentions that when a piece of land is transferred to an owner
via conveyancing; it will include all the fixtures that come with the land.

However, when something is a fitting (chattel)
it can be difficult to distinguish whether it will come as part of the land.
This idea has been translated into case law such as the case of Botham V TSB plc (1997) 73p & CRD1.


What Steven has done in terms of him removing
all those items in the property before leaving the property to Laura is similar
to the case of Botham V TSB plc (1997)
73p & CRD1, where Botham removed all the items before the bank could
take any of them away. Botham even removed the kitchen. The Judge’s decision was
that the kitchen, Bath and toilets were fittings. Curtains, lights, ornaments
and appliances (such as dishwashers and washing machines) were chattels. Lord
Justice Judge Rosh stated that a room wouldn’t be regarding as a kitchen
without the units. The fixtures of the units are what create the purpose of the
room. Judge Rosh set out indicators when deciding on whether or not an item
could be removed without damaging a property, and whether or not it was a free-standing
item or was a part of the building.


sundial that was present at the
Ash green property served its purpose of telling the time. However, upon
removing it, it no longer has that that function. The sundial is a chattel as
it was removed from the property without causing and damage to the building. It
may be seen as a personal item of Steven.


Lord Blackburn’s statement of the degree of annexation
and purpose of annexation supports the idea of having a meaning behind a
fixture/fitting.This has been set out in case law,
specifically that of Holland v Hodgson (1972) LR 7 CP
328 – Where lord justice Blackburn said that there are two tests.
One is the degree and two is the object test (purpose) The idea is about why an
object is there in the space that it is present, and if it will increase the
value of the land.  Then you would look
at if they are a fixture or fittings (Chattel). Then you must look at the
purpose of the object. 


The wooden Shed at AshGreen manor could be seen as a “part”
of the land, because once it is removed, it causes damage to the land on which
it was originally situated. It is a fixture. This issue case can be
corresponded with a later case known as Elitestone
and Morris (1997) 1–
The occupants of a bungalow as tenants. Lord Justice Lloyd went through the
case. He stated that he found the definition of fixtures and fittings confusing
in the context of a building or house. He mentioned the two tests as a “Part
and Parcel”. The case supports the idea of “degree of annexation” as its shows

missing Mural Painting that had been replaced
by bricks is also to be regarded as a fixture and not a chattel as it became a
part of the property’s value. Laura expected the mural to be there upon
purchasing the property. However, to her demise it had been removed and
replaced. The mural Painting by the famous artist that was inside the AshGreen
Manor Can Be related to the case of The
Creative Foundation v. Dreamland Leisure 2015 EWHC 2556 (Ch)– The creative foundation made a claim over dreamland
leisure LTD. The tenant dreamland Leisure removed the Banksy Painting once the
tenancy agreement had ended without the permission of the landlord. If you can
remove something without damaging the land it then becomes a chattel. However,
in this case it caused damage to the property and therefore would be regarded
as a fitting, as mentioned by Lord Blackburn’s 2 points; “1) the degree of
annexation and 2) the purpose of annexation.” So, Laura has the right to make a
case regarding the removal of the famous painting by Steven.


 It is especially important that
we can properly distinguish the idea of what makes a fixture and what makes a
chattel; when there is a transfer in ownership of the property. Any items that
are fixtures will inadvertently belong
to the transferee. (i.e. in the case of Laura, any fixtures of Ash Green will
be transferred to her).  If the land is
sold, then the ownership of the fixtures
will be transferred to the new land owner, as soon as the contract of the sale
has become binding (conveyancing). Once the sale has become binding, the seller will no longer be legally
allowed to remove these items from the property.


 The items of the property
once identified can then be placed with the rightful owners. Steven is in the
wrong for not informing Laura on the status of what was happening with the
property and what was changed. I believe that Laura had a right to create a
claim against Steven as the Wooden Shed was supposed be present at the
property, as it was in fact a fixture (caused a change to the land it was
situated on). Also, the Famous mural painting on the walls of the property
added value to the property. Therefore, it should not have been removed and
replaced with bricks, As Steven had no legal authorization to remove the shed
and the famous mural painting as the contract sale had already become binding.
He was avertedly in the wrong for not informing Laura of the changes as she had
become the rightful owner of the property. Laura,
can make a claim against Steven on the basis that said items (the wooden shed,
as well as the mural painted by the famous artists) to be gone were in fact