Buckland v Butterfield 129 ER 878 (1820)
Whether a conservatory attached to a property could be considered a fixture
Facts
It should be noted that the application of this judgment, given the subsequent case law on the matter of the distinction between fixtures and chattels, is very limited. A tenant had erected a conservatory on her house which was attached to the house and had windows opening into the conservatory and a flue passing into the parlour chimney. The lease was assigned and the issue arose as to whether, because the conservatory might be considered as purely decorative, it could be removed as a chattel. Evidence was produced which suggested that the house would suffer significant damage and part would become uninhabitable if the conservatory was removed.
Issues
The issue in this context was whether a conservatory attached to a house took the form of a fixture and remained part of the house or a chattel and could be removed and whether it was relevant that the removal would cause significant damage to the property.
Decision/Outcome
It was held, that although there was authority finding that ornamental attachments made by tenants could lawfully be removed from a property, none of this authority related directly to a structure such as the conservatory at issue. It was important therefore, that the facts of each case should be considered individually and therefore authority for a particular point, even on similar facts, may be difficult to find. On these facts, because it was considered that the removal of the conservatory would cause significant damage to the property, it was the case that the conservatory was annexed to it and therefore would be considered a fixture and could not be removed.
Updated 19 March 2026
This article accurately describes the decision in Buckland v Butterfield (1820) 129 ER 878. The case remains a recognised early authority on the law of fixtures and chattels. However, readers should note that the law in this area has developed considerably since 1820. The modern two-stage test for distinguishing fixtures from chattels — examining the degree of annexation and the purpose of annexation — was authoritatively restated by the Court of Appeal in Elitestone Ltd v Morris [1997] 1 WLR 687 (HL) and further developed in cases such as Botham v TSB Bank plc [1996] 73 P & CR D1. The purpose of annexation test is now generally regarded as the more important of the two limbs, meaning that the reasoning in Buckland v Butterfield, which focused heavily on the degree of annexation and the damage likely to result from removal, represents only part of the current legal analysis. The article’s own caveat that the case’s application is very limited, given subsequent case law, is well-founded and should be borne in mind. This article is best understood as a historical starting point for the fixtures and chattels doctrine rather than a statement of the current law.
