When buying or selling residential property in New Zealand, one issue that frequently causes post-settlement disputes is the distinction between chattels and fixtures. Although it sounds technical, understanding this difference and recording items clearly in the agreement – can save both parties time, money, and unnecessary stress.
Chattels are movable items of personal property that do not form part of the land or buildings. Common examples include appliances, curtains, blinds, removable heaters, and freestanding light fittings. By contrast, fixtures are items physically attached to the property and considered part of the real estate itself – such as built-in cabinetry, wired-in appliances, and permanently attached heating systems.
Under the standard REINZ-ADLS Agreement for Sale and Purchase, chattels must be expressly listed and will be delivered at settlement in reasonable working order, but in all other repects in the same condition they were in on the date the agreement was signed, excluding fair wear and tear. The vendor also warrants that all listed chattels are owned outright and free from security interests. Risk in the chattels remains with the vendor until possession is given, and ownership transfers on settlement when the purchaser pays the purchase price and takes possession.
Where uncertainty arises is in items that sit “on the line” between a chattel and a fixture. If there is any doubt, the safest approach is to record the item in the chattels schedule of the agreement.
SOME COURT DECISIONS ILLUSTRATE WHY THIS MATTERS:
When items are actually fixtures
The main case in New Zealand is the 1989 decision in Feickert v Perpetual Trustees (HC Wellington CP387/86). Various items – partitions, carpet, light fittings, a directory board, and a bench unit – were listed as chattels. However, the Court held they were fixtures because they were bolted down, integral to the building’s use, or intended to remain for their full economic life. The wording of the agreement could not override their true legal character.
When items remain chattels
In Māori Trustee v Prentice 1992 (HC Whangarei M42/88), a house transported onto leased land was held to be a chattel because the intention was always to keep it removable. Similar issues arise with relocatable or kitset homes placed on piles without service connections, as in ANZ v Haines House Haulage 1993 (HC Auckland CP2083/91).
Modern grey areas
Air-conditioning units, underfloor heating, heat-pumps, security systems, solar panels, EV chargers and other plant or equipment can create uncertainty. Their classification often depends on the degree of physical attachment and the purpose behind installation.
Key takeaway
To avoid disputes, both parties should carefully list all intended chattels, consider the degree of attachment and intended permanence of any item, and seek legal advice if there is the slightest uncertainty. Clear drafting at the outset remains the best protection for both vendors and purchasers.
