ROYAL PARKS LTD V BLUEBIRD BOATS LTD
It is well-established that the interrelationship between the contested item's degree of annexation and the aim of annexation is the primary factor that plays a role in establishing a difference between fixtures and chattels. This method may be traced all the way back to Blackburn J.'s judgement in Holland v. Hodgson, which was handed down in the 19th century. This method was left untouched (although it was modified somewhat) by the leading verdict of the House of Lords in Elitestone Ltd. v. Morris  UKHL 15, which was published in 1997.
The use of the two-pronged test is still dependent on the facts.
Royal Parks Ltd v Bluebird Boats Ltd  EWHC 2278 (TCC)
The disagreement centred on a boathouse that Bluebird Boats, the proprietor of a boating concession, had built on the shore of Serpentine Lake in Hyde Park in London.
At the conclusion of the concession arrangement, the High Court ruled that Bluebird did not have the legal authority to take down the boathouse. To begin, the data presented by the experts demonstrated that even while the construction of the boathouse might have been taken down within a period of three to four weeks, the foundations could not have been relocated without causing damage to them. The court determined that the boathouse was intended to be a permanent and significant addition to the property after taking an objective look at the function it served at the time it was annexed (rather than Bluebird's subjective reason for placing it there), which led to the conclusion that Bluebird's intention was irrelevant.
The use of the two-pronged test is still dependent on the facts. Therefore, while the fact that the case Royal Parks Ltd v Bluebird Boats Ltd  EWHC 2278 (TCC) does not in any way indicate that there will be a change in the legal standard, it does provide an intriguing example of how these well-established principles function, and it does so in a factual setting that is rather unique.