Fixtures and Mixtures

Though physical changes to things normally have no effect on property rights, particularly in relation to land, there are various ways in which property rights can be affected by physical changes to things. Here we are concerned with 3 of them, fixtures, accession and mixtures. Others include specification (creation of new goods), erosion or accretion etc... In short, when goods become attached to land or other goods, they may cease to exist as separate things at law, causing the property rights to them to be lost. Goods attached to land are called fixtures while goods attached to other goods are accessories. A mixture of identical goods can also cause property rights to be lost, but it is a different problem. The goods continue to exist at law but it is impossible to tell which goods belong to whom.

Fixtures – A method of acquiring/losing property through physical attachment. Goods attached to land are called fixtures but goods attached to other goods are called accessories.

The case Elitestone v Morris concerns a bungalow owned by Elitestone in Morris’s possession. In the following questions were answered. Why did it matter whether the bungalow was a chattel of a fixture? If the bungalow was found to be a chattel it would mean that the bungalow could be redeveloped and the defendant wouldn’t be protected by the Rent Act 1997. It was, however, found to be a fixture as it was constructed in such a way that it could only be removed by demolishing it, it could not have been intended to remain a chattel and must have been intended to form part of the land. On the other hand where a house was constructed in such a way as to be removable, whether as a unit or in sections (e.g. a Portakabin or mobile home) it might remain a chattel, even though it was connected temporarily to mains services such as water and electricity. Can something which is not attached to land be a fixture? Applying common sense, when the defendants’ chalet was built it became part and parcel of the land and the absence of any physical attachment to the land was irrelevant. How do tenant’s fixtures differ from other fixtures? Tenant’s fixtures are installed by tenants intended to be removed at the end of the tenancy. The degree of annexation is how the object is connected to the land, the object of annexation is the intent of the annexation, whether it was intended to be permanent or not for example.

Accession – A method of acquiring/losing property by which, in things that have a close connection or dependence (in McKeown yacht would be destroyed without hull) on one another, the property of the principal draws after it the property of the accessory.

The case McKeown v Cavalier Yachts Pty Ltd concerns a yacht built in a hull and establishes the following facts. For accession to occur there need not be attachment, just a close relationship or interdependence. If the accessory can’t be identified or cannot be detached then it becomes a fixture. The principal chattel in the case was the yacht because the hull was the addition and the work was continually done on that, not the other way round (it was submitted but the decision was not determined by yachts superior value). Specification differs from accession. It is where new

property rights are established as a result of some action upon existing property that results in a change of species.

Mixtures – The mixing together of indistinguishable goods can also cause property rights to be lost.

This occurred in Indian Oil v Greenstone Shipping where the owner of the vessel mixed their oil and the receiver’s oil negligently. This did not matter however as even though the original approach was to allocate ownership of the entire mass to the innocent party this was criticised in this case, Staughton J citing that he did not see that it is the function of civil justice to punish or discourage crime by awarding the victim more than he has lost, unless being in the special case of an award of exemplary damages. Confusio is the mixing of goods belonging to two different owners so that they cannot be separated. Where they can be separated it is commixtio. Why did the law make this distinction? Should they be treated differently? This was a case of confusio for practical purposes and Staughton J instead held that even where there had been a wrongful commingling, the mixture would generally be held in common in proportion to the contributions of the parties. Any doubt about the proportions would be resolved in favour of the innocent party. However, if it is completely impossible to determine the relative contributions of the parties then the innocent party would be entitled to the entire mass.