Berkley v Poulett & Ors

The character of an object attached to land depends on two linked inquiries: the method and degree of annexation, and the object and purpose of the annexation. Physical attachment is necessary but may be weak evidence; purpose is often decisive. An object fixed for the better enjoyment of itself may remain a chattel despite firm attachment. Conversely, an object may be a fixture where it forms part of the architectural whole. Ease of removal and architectural placement are relevant but not conclusive. On the facts, framed pictures, a statue and a detached sundial remained chattels. A claim concerning admitted fixtures also failed because no relevant act or omission by the vendor was proved.

The appellant was a subpurchaser of Hinton House and its grounds. Before completion, the head vendor removed pictures, a statue and a sundial which the appellant claimed had passed with the property. Chinese prints were admitted to be fixtures, but had been damaged.

The appellant sued the head vendor, the auctioneers and surveyors for delivery, compensation and related relief, relying on fixtures, conversion, detinue, trespass and breach of trust. The Vice-Chancellor rejected the claims. The appeal concerned whether the disputed objects were fixtures and, if so, whether the appellant could obtain relief against the head vendor or the other defendants.

By a majority, the appeal was dismissed with costs. Scarman LJ gave the first judgment and Stamp LJ agreed in the result. Goff LJ dissented as to the claim against the head vendor.

1. Fixtures. The governing inquiry, following Leigh v Taylor [1902] AC 157, has two parts: the method and degree of annexation, and the object and purpose of annexation. Some physical annexation is required, but the second inquiry is often decisive. Physical attachment may be substantial while the object remains a chattel if it was fixed for its own enjoyment. Conversely, an object may be a fixture despite easy removal if it was installed to create a room or structure as a whole.
2. Application. The pictures were firmly fixed in recesses, but were installed to be enjoyed as pictures. The panelling and the heterogeneous pictures did not form one architectural composition. The statue stood on a fixed plinth, but the object placed on it could be changed according to the occupier’s taste. The sundial had been detached from its pedestal and was not a fixture. None of these objects passed with the land.
3. Chinese prints. Although the prints were fixtures, the appellant failed to prove that Lord Poulett or anyone acting on his behalf damaged them. The claims in conversion, detinue, trespass and breach of trust therefore failed.
4. Separate opinions. Stamp LJ additionally considered that a vendor is called a constructive trustee because of contractual duties arising from the sale, not because the relationship has all the incidents of an express trust. He rejected a direct vendor–purchaser relationship between the head vendor and a subpurchaser. Goff LJ would have treated the disputed items, apart from the sundial, as fixtures or removable fixtures and would have allowed specific-performance relief against the head vendor after notice of the subsale. His view did not command the majority.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): [1976] EWCA Civ 1. The appeal was dismissed with costs by a majority.
• High Court (Chancery Division): The Vice-Chancellor held that the disputed objects were not fixtures and rejected the claims.