Cases - Holland v Hodgson

Record details

Name

Holland v Hodgson

Date

[1872]

Citation

LR 7 CP 328

Legislation

Unknown

Keywords

Commercial property - property management - dilapidations - fixtures and chattels

Summary

A number of cases illustrate the differences between fixtures and chattels, considering, for example, fitted cupboards, electrical wiring, suspended ceilings, partitions, sheds, air-conditioning equipment, carpets, curtains, etc.

• Elitestone Ltd v Morris - The chalet/bungalow could not be taken down and moved elsewhere. It could only be demolished. It had ceased to be a chattel.
• Holland v Hodgson - A carpet resting on a floor without being attached is likely to remain a chattel. Just because a carpet might be fixed to the floor will not necessarily mean it will be a fixture.
• Pan Australian Credits SA Pty Ltd v Kolim Pty Ltd - Air-conditioning equipment was so substantially installed that the units, ducting and vents had become part of the property.
• TSB Bank plc v Botham - The light fittings in this case were not fixtures (the case also considered carpets, gas fires, white goods, bathroom and kitchen units).
• Young v Dalgety plc - The light fittings in this case were fixtures.