DEFINITION OF LAND

bySharifah Zubaidah

(2011/ 2012)

When does a thing become ‘land’?

Definition:

‘Chattel’:

A thing which is removeable.(See Minshall v Lloyd150 ER 834)

‘Fixture’:A thing which wasonce a chattel but hasbecome in law, part ofland through havingbeen fixed to the land.(C: Australian ProvincialAssurance Co. Ltd. V.Coroneo (1938) 38 SR(NSW) 700)

When does a chattel become a fixture?

•When it is ‘attached’ to land?

•Is this the test?

‘Quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit.’

“Whatever is attached to land becomes land.”

Look at section 5 of the NLC

How does it define ‘LAND’?

Consider whether the following constitute ‘land’:

Chairs in a lecture hall;

The air-condition unit in your house;

The ceiling fan in your house;

An escalator in a shopping centre;

A built-in kitchen cabinet;

A fountain built in your garden.

Holland v Hodgson

1) THE DEGREE OF ANNEXATION TEST2) THE PURPOSE OF ANNEXATION TEST

Note: BOTH MUST BE APPLIED TOGETHER!

THE DEGREE OF ANNEXATION TEST

“…articles not otherwise attached to the land then by their own weight are not to be considered part

of the land, unless the circumstances are such as to shew that they were intended to be part of the land, the onus of showing that they were so

intended lying on those who assert that they have ceased to be chattels.”

(Continuation):

“…an article which is affixed to the land even slightly is to be considered as part of the land,

unless the circumstances are such as to show that it was intended all along to continue as a chattel, the onus lying on those who contend that it is a

chattel.”

Presumption is raised which:

Can be Strengthened

Can be Rebutted

Cases to illustrate Degree of Annexation Test

Hulme v. Brigham (1943) KB 152

The Shell Co. v. Commissioner of theFederal Capital [1964] MLJ 302

The Degree of Annexation is not the only decisive test.

After applying the degree of annexation test, we must then apply the Purpose of

Annexation Test.

THE PURPOSE OF ANNEXATION TEST

court will look at the underlying purpose of annexation as disclosed by the surrounding

circumstances

In Mather v Fraser 69 ER 895, the court asked:

“Does the object enhance the value and utility of the land for the purpose for which it existed?”

In Hellawell v Eastwood (1851) 6 Ex. 295, the question to ask is:

“Whether the purpose of annexation was for the permanent and substantial improvement of the

land/building or merely for a temporary purpose and the more complete enjoyment and use of it as

a chattel?”

Cases to Illustrate Purpose of Annexation Test:

Leigh v Taylor (1901) 1 Ch 523D’ Eyncourt v Gregory (1866) LR 3 Eq 382Vaudeville Electric Cinema v. Muriset[1923] 2 Ch. 74Berkley v Poulett [1977] EGD 754

Read up the following case for next class:

Goh Chong Hin & Anor. The Consolidated Malay Rubber Estates Ltd. 5 FMSLR 86

THAT’S ALL FOLKS!

“Have a Nice Day.”