TOPIC 1: DOCTRINE OF FIXTURES

Question 1

Fixture definition

Answer 1

a chose in possession (Chattel) that’s been attached/rests on land in way that it’s lost its legal identity as a separate object and become part of the land

Question 2

Factors in determining a ‘fixture’

Answer 2

1) degree/mode of annexation (extent of attachment)

2) purpose/object of annexation (objective intent)

Question 3

IF object attached to land in some way presumed to be

Answer 3

fixture (even if slightly fixed)

Question 4

It’s a fixture IF

Answer 4

it can’t be removed w/o injury to the land or goods

Question 5

If object rests by it’s own weight only then it’s presumed to be

Answer 5

a chattel

Question 6

in determining whether it’s a fixture of chattel BOP rests on

Answer 6

person asserting it’s a fixture/chattel

Question 7

Fixture scaffold

Answer 7

1) Definition
2) Factors in determining fixture
3) initial presumption
4) Belgrave Nominees test

Question 8

4) Belgrave Nominees test

Answer 8

was the objective intention of the party fixing the chattel to make it a PERMANENT PART OF THE LAND?

Question 9

Under Belgrave Nominees test - what can help in determining affixer’s objective intention?

Answer 9

Per Re Cancer Institute of Australia - consider actual intention and degree of annexation

Question 10

Factors for Belgrave Nominees test

Answer 10

i) nature of chattel
ii) relation and situation of party making annexation visavis person in possession
iii) degree/mode of annexation
iv) PURPOSE for fixing chattel
v) was chattel joined to land for its better use as a chattel /for land’s improvement?

Question 11

IF a chattel has been affixed in order to steady while it’s in operation then

Answer 11

it’s been installed for the better enjoyment of the chattel not the land (NH Dunn v LM Ericsson)

Question 12

The fact that the item is used/plays an important role in the business isn’t

Answer 12

itself enough to make it a fixture (Cancer Care)

Question 13

In Belgrave Nominees were aircon chillers resting by their own weight on a platform on roof attached to building’s electrical and water supply fixtures?

Answer 13

Even tho attachment slight and incorrect, were sufficiently attached to be presumed to be fixtures (chillers installed for better enjoyment of the building not of the chattel, subcontractors didn’t intend to retain ownership of the aircons but installed it for the builder)

Question 14

In Re Cancer Care Institute of Australia Pty Ltd [2013] were the equipment and frame one single item?

Answer 14

Not a single item, could be used separately, and frame was where the equipment rested and wasn’t part of the equipment.

Even if a single item, equipment didn’t need to become a fixture even though other parts of the machine did.

Question 15

In Re Cancer Care Institute of Australia Pty Ltd [2013] were teh two linear accelerators fixtures or chattels?

Answer 15

A Chattel - intention determined objectively was that it remained separate from the land.

Cost of removal wouldn’t exceed its value, removal wouldn’t destroy equipment, limited time to remove equipment etc

Question 16

In Re Cancer Care what argument failed?

Answer 16

that Equipment became fixture bc it contributed to Premises’ “overall architectural design” –> here, the people who installed them did not own the land but were tenants at will (who have a right to remove certain fixtures)

Question 17

Scaffold - Tenant’s R to remove fixtures

Answer 17

1) Principle (tenant has R to remove certain fixtures affixed by tenant at end of lease)
2) fixture or chattel?
3) tenant’s fixture or permanent fixture?
4) Is tenant entitled to remove at end of the lease?