## Facts

- The dispute in Berkley v Poulett [1997] 1 EGLR 86 concerned the legal classification of certain objects attached or situated on real property.
- The case involved determining whether items such as paintings and statuettes, which may be attached to the building, are fixtures (part of the realty) or chattels (personal property).
- The outcome of the classification had legal significance for the sale or transfer of property, as fixtures typically pass with the land, while chattels do not.
- The case subsequently served as an important reference in later cases involving the fixture/chattel distinction, including R v Secretary of State for Wales, ex parte Kennedy [1996] 1 PLR 97.
- In ex parte Kennedy, the issue was whether items like a carillon clock and chandeliers in a listed building were fixtures or chattels.

## Issues

1. Whether the items in question (such as paintings and statuettes) should be classified as fixtures or chattels based on objective legal tests.
2. What is the appropriate test for distinguishing fixtures from chattels: should courts prioritise the degree of annexation, the purpose of annexation, or both?
3. Whether subjective intentions of the parties play any role in determining the classification.
4. How should these principles be applied in subsequent cases, such as cases involving listed buildings or planning disputes.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the two-part objective test for distinguishing fixtures from chattels: considering both the degree of annexation to the property and the purpose of that annexation.
- The court held that the purpose of annexation is often the more determinative factor than the degree of annexation, particularly where there is ambiguity.
- Items such as valuable paintings and statuettes, even if attached, were found to be chattels if the objective intention was enjoyment of the items themselves rather than improvement to the property.
- Subjective intentions of the parties were found to be irrelevant to the legal classification.
- The principle was subsequently applied in later cases, including ex parte Kennedy, confirming that the same objective test governs both property law and planning law disputes.

## Legal Principles

- The distinction between fixture and chattel rests on two objective factors: the degree of annexation and the purpose of annexation.
- The degree of annexation considers how securely and permanently the object is attached to the land or building.
- The purpose of annexation assesses whether the object was attached to improve the property (suggesting a fixture) or to facilitate more convenient use of the object as such (suggesting a chattel).
- Courts must apply these tests objectively and ignore the parties’ subjective intentions.
- The classification directly affects property transactions: fixtures transfer with the property, while chattels do not unless expressly included.
- The legal tests require item-by-item analysis to ensure correct classification in varied circumstances.

## Conclusion

Berkley v Poulett [1997] 1 EGLR 86 established that, when classifying objects as fixtures or chattels, the purpose of annexation is the primary factor and must be assessed objectively along with the degree of annexation, ensuring legal consistency in property transactions and related disputes.