Fixtures Flashcards
Holland v Hodgson
FIXTURES
Where considering if something is a fixture:
Intention matters
Attachment matters
Where the article is just resting on the land by its own weight the onus is on the person who thinks it is a fixture to displace the presumption that it is a good
Where the article is attached to the land then onus is on the person who thinks it is still a chattel to displace the presumption that it is a fixture
Tower Hamlets
FIXTURES
Sculpture that from time to time is removed from land for overseas exhibitions.
Held that it is a good:
Sculpture is an entire object in itself as opposed to a collection of things such as a house, it is rested but its own weight creating presumption that it is a good unless disproved by council, it could and was removed without damage, not in any real sense dependent upon its location.
Obiter comment that had the sculpture been in a specially developed (for its presence) square of land then the judge may have held it to be a fixture.
Ellitestone Ltd v Morris
FIXTURES
Bungalow was situated (but not attached) on top of concrete block which were attached to the land. Mr Morris sought that the bungalow was a fixture to the land for the purpose of the Rent Act 1977 and, as such, he was entitled to the protections to tenants under the Act.
Held to be fixture.
It was built on site and couldn’t be removed without being destroyed = Held that property which cannot be moved without being destroyed cannot have been intended to be a chattel.
Two step test: Depends on degree on annexation to the land and the object of the annexation.
Melluish v BMI
UK
FIXTURES
Subjective intention is irrelevant to whether something is a fixture or good.
Lockwood Buildings Limited v Trust Bank
FIXTURES
Lockwood supplied show home to franchise builders Shearers, on land that was subject to mortgage with Trust bank. When Shearer suffered financial difficulties Lockwood removed the show home. Lockwood had security over all the goods they supplied, trust bank say security was gone once it became a fixture.
Held to be fixture because it was affixed to the land more than slightly, it was nailed to the foundation, electricity and water were connected and sewerage was ready for simple connection.
Potton Development v Thompson
FIXTURES
P manufacture units that are built in factory and then transported to sites of hires/purchasers. 9 units were supplied to a public house. The units rested on a concrete slab in which there was a bracket, a couple nails attached the units to the bracket = attachment. The public house is sold to a new owner who grants a security over its assets to a bank. The bank enforces its security and advertised the sale of the public house inclusive of the units. P disputes that the units are their goods.
Held to be good because they were not built on site, they are entire units, once they were delivered only minor touch ups were required primarily just to met consent, units stayed there because of their weight, not because of the nails and they are designed for delivery and removal.
Queenstown Central v March Construction
FIXTURES
Construction required removal of a lot of soil, so the soil from construction site was shifted to land close by owned by the builder. Resource consent required the soil to spread over the land and be removed but defendant doesn’t want to incur the costs of removing it so argues it is a fixture of the land.
The soil is not technically attached in any way to the land, has grass growing on it thus just look like the land is uneven.
Held to be good - Court develops object third party test by giving some knowledge to the observer. Question is thus what would an informed observed with knowledge of the resource consent conclude?
Ratana v Tihi
FIXTURES
This case held that a fixture can re-become a good once a fixture is removed from land.
Lake Edge Developments v Kawarau Village Holdings
FIXTURES
Resource consent requires rock anchors to be used in order to build a hotel on an inclined site. The owner then subdivides land, the purchases (Lake Edge) wants to develop their land and discover rock anchors which complicated developments.
Held to be fixture because intended to be there permanently for protection of those below the site and very deep below the surface, can only be removed by destroying them.
Court declined a continuing trespass claim because once concluded a fixture, you cannot bring trespass claim as they are part of the land (ultimately you have ownership).
