Whether an item is a 'fixture' or a 'fitting' is relevant not just on the sale of a property but also in dilapidations claims and in determining whether vacant possession has been given for the purposes of operating a break clause.
The recent case of Earl of Cardigan v Moore [2012], which concerned paintings in the Earl's ancestral home and whether these could be sold separately or were part of the reality. The case offers a reminder that whilst the distinction between fixtures and fittings may appear simple, disputes can still arise.
It is generally accepted as a rule that:
- fixtures are items annexed to the land; and
- fittings are those items which are free standing.
When considering whether an item has become annexed to the land (and has therefore become a fixture), the Court in the Earl of Cardigan's case reviewed the authorities and reconfirmed that they must have regard to two questions: the degree of annexation and, most importantly, the purpose of the annexation.
The pictures in question were fixed into recessed wall panels in the Earl's home with large, heavy-duty hooks. Whilst the Court considered that they were fixed firmly enough to become part of the wall had this been the intention, they concluded that the paintings were capable of removal without damage if ordinary skill and care was used. Therefore, it was determined that the purpose of the annexation was to enhance enjoyment of the paintings.
The Court found that the paintings were not intended to become a fixture, and therefore remained a fitting despite the high degree of annexation. Accordingly the pictures could be sold separately and were not part of the reality.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.