Thus blocks of stone placed one on the top of another without any mortar or cement for the purpose of forming a dry stone wall would become part of the land, though the same stones, if deposited in a builder’s yard and for convenience sake stacked on the top of each other in the form of a wall, would remain chattels.
2.4.3 These situations have been considered in a number of cases over many years with the key tests being the degree and the object of fixing an item to the property. In Elitestone v Morris, the House of Lords decided that a prefabricated bungalow had become part of the land on which it only rested, contrasting it with a greenhouse that could be regularly moved, with this review:
Many different tests have been suggested, such as whether the object which has been fixed to the property has been so fixed for the better enjoyment of the object as a chattel, or whether it has been fixed with a view to effecting a permanent improvement of the freehold. This and similar tests are useful when one is considering an object such as a tapestry, which may or may not be fixed to a house so as to become part of the freehold: see Leigh v. Taylor [1902] AC 157. These tests are less useful when one is considering the house itself. In the case of the house the answer is as much a matter of common sense as precise analysis. A house which is constructed in such a way so as to be removable, whether as a unit, or in sections, may well remain a chattel, even though it is connected temporarily to mains services such as water and electricity. But a house which is constructed in such a way that it cannot be removed at all, save by destruction, cannot have been intended to remain as a chattel. It must have been intended to form part of the realty.
2.4.4 These issues are relevant when considering what is to be valued for the sale, mortgage or other purpose for a property. Recent disputes concern whether fish in lakes or solar panels are part of land. Additional points arise for tenancies.
2.4.5 Tenant’s fixtures – That common law position has been overlaid by statutory intervention whereby the tenant, here particularly an agricultural tenant, is given a statutory procedure for removing some fixtures – “unfixing” them.
2.4.6 Under what is now s.10 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986, s.8 of the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995 for farm business tenancies and s.18 of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991 and in slightly differing terms, the agricultural tenant has the right to remove buildings and many fixtures but must first give the landlord the chance to buy the item in question at its value to an incoming tenant. This does not apply to the various forms of Limited Duration Tenancy in Scotland.
2.4.7 For Northern Ireland, s.17 of the Landlord and Tenant Amendment (Ireland) Act 1860 provides the right to a tenant to remove many fixtures where this can be done without substantial damage to the freehold or the fixture at any time up to two months after the end of tenancy, compensating the landlord for any damage.
2.4.8 Crops, etc – More fundamentally and a key reason for the existence of separate agricultural tenancy legislation, the rule that what is fixed to land, belongs with land applies to crops, fertilisers and other basic aspects of farm work, revealing land not only to be premises but here more akin to plant and machinery used in production. Without some form of statutory intervention, a seed would, once sown, belong to the landlord with the tenant having no right in it.
2.4.9 The tenancy agreement allows the tenant to harvest and have the benefit of work during the tenancy, but agricultural tenancy statutes in Great Britain intervene in two broad ways:
- providing a structure (often referred to as “tenant right”) at the end of the tenancy for compensating the outgoing tenant for what are then still growing crops, applied fertilisers and improvements to the soil, harvested crops (such as perhaps silage in the clamp), hefted hill sheep and some other works that must be left so that value is paid for what is left behind, encouraging the tenant to maintain the farm to the end
- disregarding at a rent review the generality of fixed equipment provided by the tenant (limited in Scotland to compensatable improvements) so that the tenant does not pay rent on the benefit of works the tenant has made.