The Doctrine of Fixtures
MA Neave, CJ Rossiter, MA Stone. Sackville and Neave Property Law (1999) 6th Ed Butterworths – Doctrine of fixtures
The doctrine of fixtures is governed by the principle stated in the maxim ‘quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit’, which means: ‘Whatever is affixed to the soil becomes a part of the soil’.
The question whether a chattel has become a fixture is a question of law: Reynolds v Ashby & Son [1904] AC 461. Determining whether an object is a fixture involves 2 steps:
1. Determining the degree of annexation. This step involves considering how the object is connected to the land. 2. Determining the purpose of the annexation. Whether the object was fixed with the intention that it remain there permanently or temporarily.
The degree of annexation
Establishing the degree of annexation involves starting with two rebuttable presumptions derived from Holland v Hodgson11:
1. If the object is in any way affixed to the land, then it is presumed to be a fixture. Even slight fixing to the land is enough to raise the presumption that a chattel is a fixture. The burden of proof lies on the party arguing that the object is a chattel.
2. An object resting on its on weight is presumed to be a chattel. The burden of proof is on the party claiming it is a fixture. These presumptions can be rebutted through evidence of intention of the annexation. This is done in step 2 – purpose of annexation.
Ease of removal
Australian Provincial Assurance Co Ltd v Coroneo: One also needs to look at the effect of removing the chattel. If the realty would be damaged when the object is removed, this is strongly indicative that it is a fixture. BUT, as Jordan CJ emphasised, each case depends on its own facts.
Purpose of annexation
Intention showing that the object was meant to remain in position permanently or for an indefinite or substantial period is a fixture: Holland v Hodgson. If it was fixed for a temporary purpose, then it is a chattel: Australian Provincial
The doctrine of fixtures is governed by the principle stated in the maxim ‘quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit’, which means: ‘Whatever is affixed to the soil becomes a part of the soil’.
The question whether a chattel has become a fixture is a question of law: Reynolds v Ashby & Son [1904] AC 461. Determining whether an object is a fixture involves 2 steps:
1. Determining the degree of annexation. This step involves considering how the object is connected to the land. 2. Determining the purpose of the annexation. Whether the object was fixed with the intention that it remain there permanently or temporarily.
The degree of annexation
Establishing the degree of annexation involves starting with two rebuttable presumptions derived from Holland v Hodgson11:
1. If the object is in any way affixed to the land, then it is presumed to be a fixture. Even slight fixing to the land is enough to raise the presumption that a chattel is a fixture. The burden of proof lies on the party arguing that the object is a chattel.
2. An object resting on its on weight is presumed to be a chattel. The burden of proof is on the party claiming it is a fixture. These presumptions can be rebutted through evidence of intention of the annexation. This is done in step 2 – purpose of annexation.
Ease of removal
Australian Provincial Assurance Co Ltd v Coroneo: One also needs to look at the effect of removing the chattel. If the realty would be damaged when the object is removed, this is strongly indicative that it is a fixture. BUT, as Jordan CJ emphasised, each case depends on its own facts.
Purpose of annexation
Intention showing that the object was meant to remain in position permanently or for an indefinite or substantial period is a fixture: Holland v Hodgson. If it was fixed for a temporary purpose, then it is a chattel: Australian Provincial