Fixtures

The case of Mew v Tristmire considered some interesting questions about chattels and fixtures in the context of an unusual dispute about the status of houseboats in Bembridge harbour.

The facts

Houseboats in Bembridge Harbour were occupied by persons who claimed to have assured tenancies of the boats.

The houseboats sat on wooden platforms which were lifted out of the water, supported by piles.

The owner of the plots on which the houseboats were situated sought possession against the occupiers, but they claimed to have the right to remain in possession as assured tenants.

What did the Court decide?

In the first instance the Court had to decide whether the boats were chattels, in which case no tenancy could arise, or whether they had become attached to the land in such a way as to become part of it, in which case a tenancy could arise.

The answer to this question was relevant in the context of the definition of an assured tenancy under the provisions of the Housing Act 1988, which requires there to be an agreement "under which a dwelling-house is let as a separate dwelling".  If a tenancy had been granted to the occupiers, it was in respect of plots comprised of the wooden platforms on which the houseboats rested.

The Court held that the boats were chattels as they could be removed, and they had always been treated as chattels, being sold by one owner to the next. Accordingly the occupiers could not establish that they had tenancies of the houseboats themselves.  The harbour authority had granted a lease or licence of the site and supporting structure, but there was no basis upon which tenancies of the houseboats could be implied.

Practical Points

Land includes all attached fixtures. Fixtures are items that are physically attached to the land and buildings.

To determine whether an item is a fixture, you need to look at the degree to which the item has been attached and the purpose of the attachment.  Something is more likely to be a fixture if it was attached to enhance the land or buildings, rather than to enhance or enjoy the item itself.

Case law has however established that the level of physical annexation should be considered alongside the purpose of the annexation.  It should be noted that even if an item is not permanently affixed to the land, if that item could not realistically be removed without it being destroyed, it is likely that the Court will find that the item was not intended to remain as a chattel, and that it must have been intended to form part of the land itself.

Rob Nicholson is a partner at Michelmores and heads up the property litigation team. For further information on the issues raised in this article, please contact Rob at rob.nicholson@michelmores.com

This information has been prepared by Michelmores LLP as a general guide only and does not constitute legal advice on any specific matter and should not be relied upon as such. We recommend that you seek professional advice before taking action. No liability can be accepted by us for any action taken or not taken as a result of this information.