My Law Tutor

D’Eyncourt v Gregory

March 05, 2024
Micheal James

Jurisdiction / Tag(s): UK Law

Introduction to D’Eyncourt v Gregory:

The 1868 case of D’Eyncourt v Gregory, decided by the English Court of Equity, stands as a landmark decision concerning the distinction between fixtures and chattels in land ownership. The central issue revolved around the interpretation of a “shifting clause” in a will, specifically whether affixed items like statues and tapestries passed with the land or remained with the life tenant.

Facts of the Case

The will of the deceased directed the settling of various estates. A crucial element was a shifting clause stipulating that specific items, including statues, tapestries, and pictures, would transfer to a different beneficiary after the life tenant’s passing. However, ambiguity arose regarding which items constituted part of the land (fixtures) and thus subject to the clause, and which were separate personal property (chattels) not affected by it.

Legal Issue

The core legal question centered on the application of the shifting clause:

  • Did certain affixed items, despite not being permanently fixed, qualify as “fixtures” and pass with the land under the clause, or were they considered separate “chattels” remaining with the life tenant?

Legal Test for Fixtures

The court employed a multi-pronged test to determine if an item became a fixture:

  • Degree of annexation: How firmly was the object physically attached to the land?
  • Object of annexation: What was the main purpose of attaching the item?
  • Character of the object: Was the item generally considered part of the land or more akin to personal property?
  • Intention of the annexor: Did the person attaching the item intend it to become permanently integrated with the land?

Arguments of the Parties

  • Life tenant:
    • Claimed many items, particularly tapestries and loosely attached statues, were primarily for personal enjoyment and not firmly fixed, thus remaining chattels excluded from the clause.
  • Remainderman (beneficiary under the shifting clause):
    • Argued the items’ size, purpose, and historical significance, despite less permanent attachment, established them as fixtures subject to the clause’s transfer.

Judgment and Rationale

The court, applying the fixture test to each contested item, sided with the remainderman:

  • They emphasized the items’ purpose as integral enhancements to the property, exceeding mere decoration.
  • While acknowledging varying degrees of attachment, the court recognized that firm physical connection wasn’t the sole determinant.
  • The historical significance and substantial nature of the items weighed in favor of considering them fixtures, despite potential looseness in some cases.

Impact of the Case

D’Eyncourt v Gregory significantly impacted legal understanding of fixtures:

  • Established a nuanced approach, considering not just physical attachment but also object purpose, character, and annexor’s intent.
  • Clarified that loose attachment wouldn’t automatically exclude an item from being a fixture if other factors indicated integration with the land.
  • Influenced future cases in applying the fixture test and resolving disputes concerning ownership of affixed items in land transactions and inheritance situations.


This case demonstrates the importance of considering various factors beyond mere physical attachment when determining whether an item affixed to land constitutes a fixture. By adopting a holistic approach, D’Eyncourt v Gregory provides a valuable framework for legal professionals and landowners alike in navigating the complexities of fixture identification and ownership. While nuances and uncertainties may persist in specific situations, the case remains a foundational reference in establishing the boundaries between fixtures and chattels in land law.

Why Choose Us:

Step into academia confidently with our Affordable Law Essay Writing Service. Recognizing the financial challenges students encounter, we provide budget-friendly solutions. Our skilled writers, well-versed in legal intricacies, deliver top-notch essays without straining your budget. You don’t have to compromise on quality; our Affordable Law Essay Writing service ensures access to expertly crafted essays that meet academic standards while being easy on your pocket. Experience the perfect balance of quality and affordability as you navigate the world of legal studies with our cost-effective writing solutions. Your academic journey just got smoother and more economical.

Cite This Work

Select a referencing style to export a reference for this article:

All Answers ltd, 'D’Eyncourt v Gregory' (, ) <> accessed 24 July 2024
My, Law, Tutor. ( ). D’Eyncourt v Gregory. Retrieved from
"D’Eyncourt v Gregory." . All Answers Ltd. 07 2024 <>.
"D’Eyncourt v Gregory." MyLawTutor., . Web. 24 July 2024. <>.
MyLawTutor. . D’Eyncourt v Gregory. [online]. Available from: [Accessed 24 July 2024].
MyLawTutor. D’Eyncourt v Gregory [Internet]. . [Accessed 24 July 2024]; Available from:
<ref>{{cite web|last=Tutor |first=MyLaw |url= |title=D’Eyncourt v Gregory | |date= |accessdate=24 July 2024 |location=UK, USA}}</ref>

Related Cases

Hodgson v Marks

UK Law . Last modified: July 22, 2024

Introduction to Hodgson v Marks Hodgson v Marks, a legal milestone, emerged in the late 20th century, tackling pivotal issues within a specific legal framework. As we delve into this case, it’s essential to grasp its historical context. The case’s legal significance lies in its ability to shape subsequent legal discourse, making it a crucial […]

Chappell and Co v Nestle Ltd

UK Law . Last modified: July 20, 2024

Introduction to Chappell and Co v Nestle Ltd: The case of Chappell and Co v Nestle Ltd delves into an intriguing legal dispute rooted in a promotional offer initiated by Nestle Ltd, the defendant, and challenged by Chappell and Co, the plaintiff, a music publishing company. This dispute revolves around the intricacies of contract law, […]

Fibrosa SA v Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd

UK Law . Last modified: July 20, 2024

Introduction to Fibrosa SA v Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd The 1943 case of Fibrosa SA v Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd explored the legal doctrine of frustration of contract. Fibrosa SA, a Polish company, entered into a written agreement with Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd, an English company, to purchase machinery for £4,800. As […]

R v Miller [1983] 2 AC 161

UK Law . Last modified: February 26, 2024

Introduction to R v Miller [1983] 2 AC 161: Let’s delve into the legal world through the lens of R v Miller [1983] 2 AC 161, a case that navigates the intricacies of criminal responsibility, specifically exploring the concept of recklessness. This legal saga carries significant weight, challenging conventional notions of intent and culpability. The […]

R v Cato – 1976

UK Law . Last modified: March 19, 2024

Introduction to R v Cato 1976: R v Cato (1976) is a pivotal case in criminal law that addresses the complex issue of self-defense and the use of force. This case study aims to delve into the intricacies of R v Cato, examining its background, legal issues, court proceedings, judgment, impact, controversies, and significance within […]

Parker v Clark – 1960

UK Law . Last modified: March 14, 2024

Introduction to Parker v Clark: Parker v Clark – 1960 stands as a pivotal legal case addressing intricate contractual disputes. This case involves Parker as the plaintiff and Clark as the defendant, unfolding against the backdrop of contractual obligations and legal remedies. It raises pertinent questions about the interpretation and enforcement of contractual agreements within […]

go to top