Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Fixtures - Coggle Diagram
Fixtures
Fixtures pass to the person who buys the house
Quixquid plantatur solo, solo cedit
("whatever is fixed to the soil becomes part of the soil")
Question of law:
Reynolds v Ashby & Son
[1904] AC 461 (HL)
When does a chattel become a fixture?
The manner of installation is critical in determining
Two part test as in
Holland v Hodgson
(1872) LR 7:
1) degree of fixation
2) Intention of annexation
Degree of fixation
To what degree is the object affixed to the land?
The objective intention of the person affixing the chatel
Farley v Hawkins
(1997) 2 Qd R 361
was the dishwasher a fixture?
was the shed a fixture?
The dishwasher was connected via inlet/outlet. However, when removed left a vacant hole in the cabinetry
The dishwasher was held to be a fixture. It was a fixture, fitted amongst fixtures (the cabinet). The way it was fitted formed the intention of why it was fitted to the house
The shed was a heavy iron fixture bolted to concrete blocks
The shed was determined to be a fixture. It was constructed in such a way that its size and positioning made it such that it suggested permanency
Strong presumption that if something is securely affixed to the land, then it will be determined to be a fixture
Must look to all surrounding circumstances
May v Ceedive Pty Ltd
(2006) 13 BPR 24
Belgrave Nominees Pty Ltd v Barlin-Scott Airconditioning (Aust) Pty Ltd [1984] VicRp 75
Whether the chattel intended to be permanent is inferred from
the nature of the chattel
mode of annexation
relation and situation of party making annexation
purpose chattel was fixed
Leigh v Taylor
(1902) AC 157
Tapestries found to be a chattel
The tapestries were installed by tenant
could be removed without causing damage and they were ornamental in nature and needed to be hung on the wall to be enjoyed
Re Whaley
[1908] 2 Ch 497
Tapestries found to be a fixture
Importantly the tapestry was attached by the owner
It was reasonable to presume the owner attached the tapestries to improve the land
The tapestries were installed to enhance the Elizabethan character of the room
Norton v Dashwood
[1896] 2 Ch 497
Tapestries found to be fixtures
To be removed the tapestries had to damage the brickwork
The distinction between real property and personal property (or chatels)