In order to determine whether an object has become part of the land we have to examine the object in question and assess the prospect of it being classified as a chattel or a fixture. Based on the Law of Property Act 1925, land includes land of any tenure, both freehold and leasehold such as buildings or parts of buildings and other corporeal hereditaments. Chattels can be described as any property that is not freehold or leasehold land. These are moveable personal property that retain their independent character and therefore do not form part of the land. Lastly, fixtures are tangible objects, chattels that have been annexed to the land so as to become part of it. The general maxim being ‘what is affixed to the soil becomes part of the soil’, which was supported in the House of Lords case of Elitestone Ltd v Morris [1997] where it was established that what is fixed to the land becomes part and parcel of that land.
In his judgement in the case of Holland v Hodgson (1872), Blackburn J formulated two tests to determine whether an object has been annexed by the land. The first being the degree of annexation and the second the purpose of annexation. Based on Elitestone the importance of the degree of annexation varies from object to object whereas in the case of a large object the question does not often arise. Based on the authoritative textbook of Woodfall: Landlord and Tenant the question when examining the degree of annexation is whether the object can be easily removed without injury to itself or the fabric of the building. The second test, the purpose of annexation is objective. The test being whether the object was intended to be part of the land. The courts consider the circumstances in which the object was attached, whether it was fixed for its better enjoyment as a chattel or whether it was fixed in order to be a permanent improvement to the land.
The question then becomes whether the prefabricated house portrayed in Picture (A) forms part of the land. By applying the first test, it seems that the prefabricated house is not fixed to the land but like the bungalow in Elitestone, it simply rests on its own weight. However, in comparison to the bungalow, the house can be easily removed without affecting the land it was installed on. It therefore resembles the greenhouse examined inDeen v Andrews [1985] which was not affixed to the land and was found to be a chattel. Lastly, as the house is intended for residential use it should be connected to utilities such as water and electricity.
When considering the purpose of annexation for a house, the main test is found in Elitestone. The question being whether the house was constructed in such a way as to be removable whether as a unit or in sections even though it is connected to mains services. In our case, the house is prefabricated and it can be installed on the land within six hours as it was constructed with the purpose of being easily disassembled and afterwards re-erected elsewhere.
In conclusion, due to the nature of the house’s construction and its portability it seems likely that the object examined would be found to remain a chattel.