Which combination of cases relates to fixtures and fittings?

• A. Holland v Hodgson and Leigh v Taylor
• B. Leigh v Taylor and Donoghue v Stevenson
• C. Donoghue v Stevenson and Rylands v Fletcher
• D. Holland v Hodgson and Donoghue v Stevenson

Answer: (A)

Distinguishing fixtures from fittings in property transactions hinges on attachment and intention. A fixture is something attached to the land in a way that it becomes part of the property and passes with the conveyance; a fitting is a chattel that can be removed without harming the land.

Holland v Hodgson is a classic example of this approach. A carpet fixed to a wooden floor with nails was treated as a fixture because the attachment was permanent and the intention was for it to remain as part of the building. Leigh v Taylor reinforces this line of thought with a similar floor-covering scenario, showing that when the item is attached in a way that makes it part of the property, it is considered a fixture.

The other choices involve tort law principles rather than the property-focused issue of fixtures and fittings, so they aren’t relevant to this topic.