Land law - fixtures or fittings?

Before going into the issue of fixture, we should examine the assignment first. If the assignment provides for the inclusion of the items as part of the sale, we do not need to inquire whether the items aforementioned are fixtures or not. The vendor would be bound to transfer the items to Arnold.

Unfortunately, we are not provided with the assignment. Hence, let's look at the criteria that determine what is a fixture.

Hamp v Bygrave sets out the test for fixtures:
1) degree of annexation: if items are firmly fixed to the land, it is more likely that the items are fixtures, though this is not conclusive.
2) purpose of annexation: if the items are used to improve the enjoyment of the land, it is more likely that the items are fixtures. If the items are intended to be enjoyed as objects and not part of the land, it is more likely the items are chattels. Nothing is conclusive.

Re de Falbe, Ward v Taylor: Items which are firmly fixed to the land may yet remain chattels if the purpose of the annexation was to enjoy them as chattels and the degree of the annexation was no more than was necessary.

D'Eyncourt v Gregory: Articles which are intended to improve the land though their annexation is by no more than their own weight may be regarded as fixtures

In recent times the purpose of annexation is given more weight

(a) I think they are chattels since they are probably enjoyed separately as objects. Berkley v Poulett held that the pictures, statutes and sundial in question are chattels.

(b) I think the mirror is a chattel, since it does not enhance the enjoyment of the house.

(c) There is a low degree of annexation; an object resting on the ground by its own weight is prima facie a chattel. Also, it is probably enjoyed as an object and hence a chattel.

(d) There is a high degree of annexation. It is also probably intended to enhance the enjoyment of the house; it cannot be enjoyed separately from the house. Hence, it is very likely the sink is a fixture.