LAWCOMM 442 - Personal Property LN.docx-...
LAWCOMM_442_-_Personal_Property_LN.docx-Don Lye 171346040 LAWPUBL 442: PERSONAL
Showing 19 out of 79
LAWCOMM 442 - Personal Property LN.docx-Don Lye 17...
LAWCOMM_442_-_Personal_Property_LN.docx-Don Lye 171346040 LAWPUBL 442: PERSONAL
LAWCOMM 442 - Personal Property LN....
LAWCOMM_442_-_Personal_Property_LN.docx-Don Lye 171346040 LAWPUBL 442: PERSONAL
Page 19
Don Lye
accordance with the contract, which instruction was never challenged by March;
and ultimately the piles were removed; and
(d) neither the owner of the land (QIHL) nor the mortgagee has made a claim to
ownership: Strategic has stated in correspondence to QCL that it was unaware of
the arrangement between QCL and QIHL; its engineer has stated in correspondence
to QCL that March had not told him of any contractual obligations between itself and
QCL, and that if March had done so Strategic’s approach to removal of the piles
would have been different (the purpose of Strategic’s arrangement was to achieve a
tidy site ahead of sale).”
“The last factor to consider is that these piles provided no benefit to QIHL’s land save
during the period of construction.
This can be contrasted with the permanent piles on
QCL’s site where it was clear that they were to become part of the land (because of the
ongoing need for retention) or even the piles that remained on QIHL’s land which
clearly were retained because they did provide ongoing support.”
“I am satisfied, weighing both the degree and purpose of the annexation, that the clear
temporary purpose, judged objectively, outweighs any conclusion that might otherwise
have been drawn from the extent and nature of the annexation of the piles to the land.
The purpose (temporary retention whilst other support for the land is not available)
explains the annexation. On this analysis, I find that the sheet piles for which QCL now
claims compensation were not fixtures on QIHL’s land, so that ownership did not pass
to QIHL.”
A case in which the application of the test to the fact is a little less clear.
This case seems to be looking at subjective intention a bit more? As identifiable
from the parties’ conduct – this seems to be a step away from the objective
Note that the degree of annexation – creates a light presumption – readily rebutted by the
objective purpose of the annexation.
Lictor Anstalt v Mir Steel UK Ltd [2014] EWHC 3316 (Ch) at [163]-
London Borough of Tower Hamlets v London Borough of Bromley
EWHC 1954 (Ch) [1] - [2], [12] - [17]
163]- [190]
Lakes Edge Developments Ltd v Kawarau Village Holdings Ltd
[2017] NZCA 205
Similar case to
March Construction
Anchors running under ground to stabilise the ground.
Was not a temporary arrangement, was a permanent installation to keep the land stable.
Randerson J (Judgment of the Court)
“The principles on which the Court proceeds in determining whether a structure on or
under land is a fixture are not in dispute. As this Court found in
Auckland City Council v
Ports of Auckland Ltd
the traditional test for whether a chattel had become part of the
realty of the land on which it was situated was to determine whether it was a “fixture”.
The Court pointed out that in
Elitestone Ltd v Morris
the House of Lords had moved away
from this formulation. Instead, a broader formulation was proposed, namely whether the
chattel could properly be said to have become part and parcel of the land. The two main

Ace your assessments! Get Better Grades
Browse thousands of Study Materials & Solutions from your Favorite Schools
Vanderbilt University
Great resource for chem class. Had all the past labs and assignments
Leland P.
Santa Clara University
Introducing Study Plan
Using AI Tools to Help you understand and remember your course concepts better and faster than any other resource.
Find the best videos to learn every concept in that course from Youtube and Tiktok without searching.
Save All Relavent Videos & Materials and access anytime and anywhere
Prepare Smart and Guarantee better grades

Students also viewed documents