A. meaning of_fixtures

Halsbury's Laws of Malaysia - Landlord and Tenant/270 - Landlord and Tenant/(5) Demised
Premises/(4) Fixtures/A. Meaning of Fixtures

(4) FIXTURES
A. MEANING OF FIXTURES

[270.227]
Ownership of fixtures
It is clear from the statutory definition of land 1 that land includes fixtures2. The English law
of fixtures3 applies in Malaysia4. It is the general rule that anything fixed to the land
becomes part of the land5. In accordance with this rule, chattels6 affixed to premises at the
date of a lease by a landlord, or some prior owner or tenant, pass under the demise 7 unless
expressly or impliedly excluded8. Chattels so affixed, and chattels affixed subsequent to the
commencement of the lease, must be delivered up to the landlord on the determination of
the tenancy, unless the tenant is entitled to remove them by virtue of some special rule of
law, statute or agreement9.
Whether or not the tenant is entitled to remove a thing attached to the land often depends
on whether it has become a fixture and if it has, whether he can remove it by reason of the
agreement between the parties or some special rule of law10.
Fixtures which the tenant may not remove are usually referred to as 'landlord's fixtures' 11.
This term includes fixtures attached to the premises at the date of the demise, those fixed
by the landlord during the term, and also those fixed by the tenant which he is not entitled
to remove12. Those removable by the tenant are usually referred to as 'tenant's fixtures'
and, while attached to the premises, form part of the realty13. If the fixtures are not removed
by the tenant, they pass to the landlord, and a subsequent tenant takes no interest in them
other than as part of the premises demised to him 14. In practice, the theoretical distinction
between articles that the tenant may remove because they have never become fixtures
and articles which have become fixtures but are nevertheless removable as 'tenant's
fixtures', has often become blurred15.
Although plant and machinery may become fixtures, the owner of land can contractually
provide for them not to be regarded as such, and the terms of such a contract are binding
on those who are privy to it16.
1 As to the meaning of 'land' see [270.075]. See also LAND (2003 Reissue) (Original Title Scheme)
[150.026].
2 The word 'fixtures' has no definite meaning: Koh Keh Choi v PP [1948] MLJ 6 at 7 per Evans J. See
also Chua Sai Ngoh v Beh Ai Meng [1955] MLJ 167; Kiah binte Hanapiah v Som binte Hanapiah [1953]
MLJ 82, CA; The Shell Co of the Federation of Malaya Ltd v Comr of the Federal Capital of Kuala
Lumpur [1964] MLJ 302; Wiggins Teape (M) Sdn Bhd v Bahagia Trading Sdn Bhd [1980] 2 MLJ 45 at 46
per Vohrah J; Multi Enterprise v Jitsuya Department Store Sdn Bhd (Ang Back Chong, third parties)
(unreported, 29 July 1992; Civ Suit No 23-152-1988); Esso Malaysia Bhd v Hills Agency (M) Sdn Bhd
[1994] 1 MLJ 740 at 750 per Idris Yusoff J; MBf Finance Bhd v Global Pacific Textile Industries Sdn Bhd
(in receivership) [1994] 2 AMR 1084 at 1091 per Abdul Malik Ishak JC.
3 See BBMB Kewangan Bhd v Kueh Teck Swee [2001] 1 MLJ 176 at 183 where Ian Chin J referring to
Stroud's Judicial Dictionary (4th Edn) Vol 2 p 1059 said: 'The English law of fixture is the product of the
common law and not of statute, and it has been said to have no precise meaning'.
4 Singma Sawmill Co Sdn Bhd v Asian Holdings (Industrialised Buildings) Sdn Bhd [1980] 1 MLJ 21, FC
(pronouncement by Anuar JC in the High Court that the English law of fixtures applies in this country not
disapproved by the Federal Court); The Shell Co of the Federation of Malaya Ltd v Comr of the Federal
Capital of Kuala Lumpur [1964] MLJ 302; Wiggins Teape (M) Sdn Bhd v Bahagia Trading Sdn Bhd

[1980] 2 MLJ 45 at 46 per Vohrah J; MBf Finance Bhd v Global Pacific Textile Industries Sdn Bhd (in
receivership) [1994] 2 AMR 1084 at 1091 per Abdul Malik Ishak JC. See also Goh Chong Hin v
Consolidated Malay Rubber Estates Ltd (1924) 5 FMSLR 86, CA (English law of fixtures applies to the
Federal Malay States); Goh Eng Seong v Tay Keng Seow [1936] MLJ 40 (in the interpretation of the
Johore Land Enactment 1910 (En No 1) (now repealed by the National Land Code (Act 56 of 1965)) s
56A the court held that the English law of fixtures is applicable to Johore); BBMB Kewangan Bhd v Kueh
Teck Swee [2001] 1 MLJ 176 at 184 per Ian Chin J (English law of fixtures applies to Sarawak; case
decided under the Sarawak Land Code (Cap 81) which carries a definition of 'land' similar to that in the
National Land Code (Act 56 of 1965). In BBMB Kewangan Bhd v Kueh Teck Swee (above), Ian Chin J
observed that the ordinary meaning of the term 'permanently fastened' used in the definition of 'land'
loses its significance if not its relevance if the English law of fixtures is applied.
5 Chua Sai Ngoh v Beh Ai Meng [1955] MLJ 167 at 168, where Thomson J stated that the general
principle of the English law is embodied in the maxim 'quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit' (whatever is
affixed to the soil belongs to the soil). See Esso Malaysia Bhd v Hills Agency (M) Sdn Bhd [1994] 1 MLJ
740 at 750 per Idris Yusoff J; BBMB Kewangan Bhd v Kueh Teck Swee [2001] 1 MLJ 176 at 182 per Ian
Chin J (a fixture is invariably a chattel that through annexation or attachment or affixation, becomes a
fixture); The Shell Co of the Federation of Malaya Ltd v Comr of the Federal Capital of Kuala Lumpur
[1964] MLJ 302 at 304 per Ong J (tanks buried two feet below ground level, and turfed over or covered
with concrete or macadam found to be land). See also Bain v Brand (1876) 1 App Cas 762 at 767, HL,
per Lord Cairns LC; Wake v Hall (1880) 7 QBD 295 at 301, CA (Eng), per Lord Selborne LC; Elwes v
Maw (1802) 3 East 38 at 51; Buckland v Butterfield (1820) 2 Brod & Bing 54 at 58.
6 The term 'chattel' is not used in the National Land Code (Act 56 of 1965), but see the Interpretation Acts
1948 and 1967 (Act 388) s 3 where 'movable property' is defined to mean all property other than
immovable property; and 'immovable property' to mean land and any interest in, right over or benefit
arising or to arise out of land.
7 Colegrave v Dias Santos (1823) 2 B & C 76; Longstaff v Meagoe (1834) 2 Ad & El 167. The tenant
does not, by accepting the lease, come under an implied contract to pay for fixtures: Goff v Harris (1843)
5 Man & G 573.
8 Thus, the express mention of certain fixtures may show an intention to exclude others: Hare v Horton
(1833) 5 B & Ad 715. Cf Simmons v Midford [1969] 2 Ch 415, [1969] 2 All ER 1269 (a drain laid under
servient land held not to adhere to the freehold of that land but to remain in the ownership of the
dominant tenement). See also Montague v Long (1972) 116 Sol Jo 712 (bridge built under licence by an
adjacent owner with a right of way over the licensor's land held to be affixed to the soil).
9 BBMB Kewangan Bhd v Kueh Teck Swee [2001] 1 MLJ 176 at 184 per Ian Chin J; Multi Enterprise v
Jitsuya Department Store Sdn Bhd (Ang Back Chong, third parties) (unreported, 29 July 1992; Civ Suit
No 23-152-1988).
10 See BBMB Kewangan Bhd v Kueh Teck Swee [2001] 1 MLJ 176 at 181 per Ian Chin J.
11 Boswell v Crucible Steel Co [1925] 1 KB 119, CA (Eng). This expression has been said to be an
inaccurate one ( Elliott v Bishop (1854) 10 Exch 496 at 508), but it is generally useful for the purposes of
distinction. See also BBMB Kewangan Bhd v Kueh Teck Swee [2001] 1 MLJ 176 at 184 per Ian Chin J.
The term 'fixtures' is sometimes used as meaning only articles affixed to the freehold which are
removable at the will of the person who affixed them ( Hallen v Runder (1834) 1 Cr M & R 266; Elliott v
Bishop (1854) 10 Exch 496 at 508; Re Gawan, ex p Barclay (1855) 5 De GM & G 403 at 410; Re de
Falbe, Ward v Taylor [1901] 1 Ch 523 at 538, CA (Eng), per Stirling LJ), but this seems an unnecessarily
limited application of the word. It is a term which in any event is not properly applicable to articles forming
part of the construction of premises, and it should be applied only to articles affixed to the freehold as
accessories: Boswell v Crucible Steel Co (above). Plate-glass windows forming one side of a building
are not fixtures ( Boswell v Crucible Steel Co (above)), and it is doubtful whether doors and windows of
premises are properly described as fixtures, although they have been so referred to on occasions (Co Litt
53a; Climie v Wood (1869) LR 4 Exch 328 at 329, Ex Ch; Herlakenden's Case (1589) 4 Co Rep 62a at
64a).
12 As to the time by which these fixtures have to be removed see [270.237].
13 Re the Estate of Kavena Mohamed Yoosuf (decd), Estate and Trust Agencies (1927) Ltd v Fatimah
Sham binte Haji Sahib (w) [1936] MLJ 1, CA (Sing), following Bain v Brand (1876) 1 App Cas 762 at 772,
HL, per Lord Chelmsford; Gebrueder Buehler AG v Peter Chi Man Kwong [1988] 2 MLJ 69 at 76 [1988] 1
SLR 24 at 35, CA (Sing), per Wee Chong Jin CJ. See also Minshall v Lloyd (1837) 2 M & W 450 at 459;
Gibson v Hammersmith and City Rly Co (1863) 2 Drew & Sm 603 at 609; Horwich v Symond (1914) 110
LT 1016; affd (1915) 84 LJKB 1083, CA (Eng). It has been said that in cases where the right of removal

exists, the chattel has never become part of the freehold ( Re Sir Edward Hulse, Beattie v Hulse [1905] 1
Ch 406 at 411 per Buckley J), but in the light of the cases cited above this is conceived to be erroneous,
although it is true that articles so lightly attached as not to be regarded as fixtures never lose their chattel
character. As to the distinction between tenant's fixtures and improvements see New Zealand
Government Property Corp v HM & S Ltd [1982] QB 1145, [1982] 1 All ER 624, CA (Eng).
14 The Shell Co of the Federation of Malaya v President, Town Council Bandar Penggaram, Batu Pahat
[1962] MLJ 277, referring with approval to Smith v City Petroleum Co Ltd [1940] 1 All ER 260 (although
the point was not argued).
15 See BBMB Kewangan Bhd v Kueh Teck Swee [2001] 1 MLJ 176 at 183 per Ian Chin J; Spyer v
Phillipson [1931] 2 Ch 183, CA (Eng) (panelling held to be removable as being a 'tenant's fixture'),
purportedly following Leigh v Taylor [1902] AC 157, HL (tapestries affixed to walls held never to have
become fixtures).
16 Sri Kajang Rock Products Sdn Bhd v Mayban Finance Bhd [1992] 1 CLJ 204 where VC George J
referred with approval to Hobson v Gorringe [1897] 1 Ch 182. In Sri Kajang Rock Products Sdn Bhd v
Mayban Finance Bhd (above), the landowner had entered into an equipment leasing agreement with the
defendant and being bound by the terms of the agreement, could not rely on the argument that the
machinery was so affixed to the land as to become a fixture. The learned judge observed that in equity,
perhaps those who had notice of the contract would be similarly bound. See also Ellis v Glover &
Hobson Ltd [1908] 1 KB 388 at 396, CA (Eng), per Fletcher Moulton LJ; Gebrueder Buehler AG v Peter
Chi Man Kwong [1987] 1 MLJ 356, [1986] 1 SLR 344.

[270.228]
Test to determine what are fixtures
Whether a chattel has been so affixed to the premises so as to become a fixture is a
question of fact or one of mixed fact and law1, which principally depends first on the mode
and extent of the annexation, and especially on whether the chattel can easily be removed
without injury to itself or to the premises; and secondly on the object and purpose of the
annexation, that is to say, whether it was for the permanent and substantial improvement of
the premises or merely for a temporary purpose for the more complete enjoyment and use
of the chattel as a chattel2. The mode of annexation is, therefore, only one of the
circumstances to be considered, and is not the sole determining factor 3. What is of greater
importance is the purpose of annexation rather than the mode or degree of the
annexation4.
A chattel which is attached to the premises only by its own weight 5 will not in general be
regarded as a fixture, unless circumstances show that it was intended to become part of
the premises, and the onus of proving that there was such an intention rests on the party
asserting that the chattel has become a fixture 6. On the contrary, a chattel even slightly
affixed to the premises will be considered to be a fixture unless the circumstances show
that it was intended all along to remain a chattel, and in such a case the onus is on the
party asserting that it is still a chattel7.
1 Khaw Joo Jeang v Koay Seng Chye [1960] MLJ 203 at 206 per Rigby J, referring with approval to
Billing v Pill [1954] 1 QB 70 at 75, [1953] 2 All ER 1061 at 1063 per Lord Goddard LCJ; MBf Finance
Bhd v Global Pacific Textile Industries Sdn Bhd (in receivership) [1994] 2 AMR 1084; Material Trading
Pte Ltd (in liquidation) v DBS Finance Ltd [1988] 2 MLJ 162 at 163, [1988] 1 SLR 293 at 295 per Thean J.
2 Khaw Joo Jeang v Koay Seng Chye [1960] MLJ 203 at 206 per Rigby J, referring with approval to
Billing v Pill [1954] 1 QB 70 at 75, [1953] 2 All ER 1061 at 1063 per Lord Goddard LC; MBf Finance Bhd
v Global Pacific Textile Industries Sdn Bhd (in receivership) [1994] 2 AMR 1084; Punca Klasik Sdn Bhd v
All Persons in Occupation of the Wooden House Erected on a Portion of Land Held Under Grant No
26977 for Lot 4271 in the Township of Johor Bahru, Johor [1996] 5 MLJ 92; BBMB Kewangan Bhd v
Kueh Teck Swee [2001] 1 MLJ 176; Esso Malaysia Bhd v Hills Agency (M) Sdn Bhd [1994] 1 MLJ 740;
Gebrueder Buehler AG v Peter Man Chi Kwong [1987] 1 MLJ 356, [1986] 1 SLR 344; Material Trading
Pte Ltd (in liquidation) v DBS Finance Ltd [1988] 2 MLJ 162, 1988] 1 SLR 293. See also Hellawell v
Eastwood (1851) 6 Exch 295 at 312 per Parke B; Holland v Hodgson (1872) LR 7 CP 328 at 334, Ex Ch.
In Khaw Joo Jeang v Koay Seng Chye (above), the court applying the rule in Billing v Pill (above), held
that a conglomeration of four stalls with wooden posts embedded in a cement floor to support corrugated
iron roofing was not for the permanent and substantial improvement of the land, but for the temporary

purpose of enabling the hawkers to trade in greater comfort, and was therefore not a fixture.
3 Chua Sai Ngoh v Beh Ai Meng [1955] MLJ 167 at 169 per Thomson J, following Leigh v Taylor [1902]
AC 157 at 162, HL, per Lord Macnaghten; Esso Malaysia Bhd v Hills Agency (M) Sdn Bhd [1994] 1 MLJ
740 at 750 per Idris Yusoff J; MBf Finance Bhd v Global Pacific Textile Industries Sdn Bhd (in
receivership) [1994] 2 AMR 1084; Material Trading Pte Ltd (in liquidation) v DBS Finance Ltd [1988] 2
MLJ 162, [1988] 1 SLR 293.
4 Chua Sai Ngoh v Beh Ai Meng [1955] MLJ 167 at 169 per Thomson J, following Leigh v Taylor [1902]
AC 157 at 162, HL, per Lord Macnaghten (the mode of annexation is only one of the circumstances of the
case, and not always the most important - and its relative importance is probably not what it was in ruder
or simpler times). See also Esso Malaysia Bhd v Hills Agency (M) Sdn Bhd [1994] 1 MLJ 740 at 750 per
Idris Yusoff J (bulk plant permanently attached to the land found to be a fixture considering the purpose
for which the various types of equipment were intended to be used); MBf Finance Bhd v Global Pacific
Textile Industries Sdn Bhd (in receivership) [1994] 2 AMR 1084 at 1092, where Abdul Malik Ishak JC
referred with approval to J G Riddall Introduction to Land Law (4th Edn) p 51 and said that the test of
purpose seeks to give effect to the intention of the person who introduced the chattel onto the land
(dyeing machines installed for a temporary purpose under an equipment lease agreement containing a
term that the lessor was to retain the title to them, found to be chattels despite the fact that the legs of the
machines were fixed to cement platforms without the consent of the lessors and contrary to the terms of
the equipment lease agreement).
5 See Material Trading Pte Ltd (in liquidation) v DBS Finance Ltd [1988] 2 MLJ 162 at 164, [1988] 1 SLR
293 at; See also eg Culling v Tufnal (1694) Bull NP 34 (barn placed upon pattens and blocks of timber
lying on the ground); Mather v Fraser (1856) 2 K & J 536 at 559 (cisterns resting on the ground). It is
immaterial that these chattels may sink into the ground ( Wood v Hewett (1846) 8 QB 913 at 919;
Huntley v Russell (1849) 13 QB 572 at 577 note (a); Hutchinson v Kay (1857) 23 Beav 413 (looms for
weaving cotton yarn standing on their own weight and resting on iron feet not bolted to the ground but
standing in iron cups within holes dug in the ground such cups being unfastened and easily removable,
found to be chattels)); or are operated by machinery that is attached to the land: Hulme v Brigham [1943]
1 KB 152, [1943] 1 All ER 204 (unattached printing machines resting on their own weight although parts
of the apparatus driving them were fixed to the freehold, such apparatus being easily removable, found to
be chattels). Therefore, a chattel resting by its own weight on foundations or in a place prepared for it in
the ground, is prima facie not a fixture: see R v Londonthorpe Inhabitants (1795) 6 Term Rep 377; R v
Otley, Suffolk, Inhabitants (1830) 1 B & Ad 161; Wansbrough v Maton (1836) 4 Ad & El 884 (all cases
relating to wooden windmills or barns resting on brick foundations).
6 The Shell Co of the Federation of Malaya Ltd v Comr of the Federal Capital of Kuala Lumpur [1964]
MLJ 302 at 304 per Ong J, following Holland v Hodgson (1872) LR 7 CP 328 at 335, Ex Ch, per
Blackburn J; Wiggins Teape (M) Sdn Bhd v Bahagia Trading Sdn Bhd [1980] 2 MLJ 45 at 46 per Vohrah
J; Esso Malaysia Bhd v Hills Agency (M) Sdn Bhd [1994] 1 MLJ 740 at 750 per Idris Yusoff J; Material
Trading Pte Ltd (in liquidation) v DBS Finance Ltd [1988] 2 MLJ 162, [1988] 1 SLR 293.
7 Goh Eng Seong v Tay Keng Seow [1936] MLJ 40 at 41 per Mills J, following Holland v Hodgson
(1872) LR 7 CP 328; The Shell Co of the Federation of Malaya Ltd v Comr of the Federal Capital of
Kuala Lumpur [1964] MLJ 302 at 304 per Ong J; Singma Sawmill Co Sdn Bhd v Asian Holdings
(Industrialised Buildings) Sdn Bhd [1980] 1 MLJ 21 (affd by the Federal Court in the same report);
Wiggins Teape (M) Sdn Bhd v Bahagia Trading Sdn Bhd [1980] 2 MLJ 45 at 46 per Vohrah J (printing
machine attached to the land by bolts found to be a fixture); Esso Malaysia Bhd v Hills Agency (M) Sdn
Bhd [1994] 1 MLJ 740 at 750 per Idris Yusoff J; Punca Klasik Sdn Bhd v All Persons in Occupation of the
Wooden House Erected on a Portion of Land Held Under Grant No 26977 for Lot 4271 in the Township of
Johor Bahru, Johor [1996] 5 MLJ 92 (houses permanently fastened to the land found to be fixtures and
part of the land); Material Trading Pte Ltd (in liquidation) v DBS Finance Ltd [1988] 2 MLJ 162, [1988] 1
SLR 293.

[270.229]
Mode of annexation
The general rule is that mere juxtaposition with the land is insufficient to make a chattel a
fixture and there must be some attachment to the land 1. However, attachment is not
essential if the intention is to make the article a part of the land 2 and the manner of
annexation is evidence by which it may be proved whether the object of the annexation
was permanent or temporary3. Where there is such an intention as where sculptured
figures or vases are part of the architectural scheme of a house 4, or where movable dog
grates are substituted for fixed grates5; and such articles become fixtures although resting

only by their own weight. Further, an article will be treated as a fixture if it is essential to the
use of the land or building, even though it is temporarily removed from it 6, or exists as a
mere chattel7. If the nature, degree, and object of the annexation are such as to show that
the intention was to annex the chattels to the land only temporarily, then the general rule
that annexation of chattels to land is intended to be permanent will not apply 8.
If the article cannot be removed without great damage to the land or building, there is a
strong presumption that it was intended to form part of the realty 9. The attachment is often
such that, although the chattel is firmly affixed, it can be removed without great damage to
the land or building, and therefore may not be a fixture, as, for example, where a
greenhouse is fastened by mortar on walls built to support it 10, or an army hut, the floor of
which was secured to a concrete base by bolts led into the concrete 11, or seats secured to
the floor of a cinema hall by screws12, or a gas-engine is fastened by bolts and screws to
iron plates embedded in concrete13, or a boiler is fixed in brickwork14 or is bolted to a
wooden framework embedded in mortar laid on brickwork 15, or looms in a cotton mill are
fastened by nails through the loom feet to wooden plugs 16, or to beams17, in the floor, or
machinery is fastened to buildings by bolts and nuts18, or a threshing machine is fixed by
bolts and screws to posts let into the ground19, or machinery is fastened by bolts and nuts
to concrete beds and worked by power transmitted from an engine by shafts, wheels, and
gearing20. Overhead cranes designed for use within the confines of the warehouses where
they were installed, on runways welded to the beams of those warehouses, were similarly
found to be fixtures as they were an adjunct to the warehouses, improving their usefulness
and increasing their value21.
However, as long as the chattels can be removed without doing irreparable damage to the
demised premises, neither the method of attachment, the degree of annexation nor the
quantum of damage that would be done either to the chattel itself or to the demised
premises by its removal, has any bearing on the right of the tenant to remove it, except in
so far as it throws light upon the question of the intention with which the tenant affixed the
chattel to the demised premises22.
1 Re the estate of Kavena Mohamed Yoosuf (decd), Estate and Trust Agencies (1927) Ltd v Fatimah
Sham binte Haji Sahib (w) [1936] MLJ 1, CA (Sing), following Bain v Brand (1876) 1 App Cas 762 at 766,
HL, per Lord Cairns LC. Tramlines fastened to sleepers merely laid upon the ground are not fixtures,
notwithstanding that they have sunk into the ground by the pressure of the waggons passing over them (
Duke of Beaufort v Bates (1862) 3 De GF & J 381); nor are straightening plates laid on the ground in an
iron foundry and partly penetrating the ground ( Metropolitan Counties etc Society v Brown (1859) 26
Beav 454 at 461); but railways laid in ballast are fixtures ( Turner v Cameron (1870) LR 5 QB 306; Re
Armytage, ex p Moore and Robinson's Banking Co (1880) 14 ChD 379); and so are straightening plates
let into the floor of a foundry so as to become part of the permanent floor ( Re Richards, ex p Astbury, ex
p Lloyds Banking Co (1869) 4 Ch App 630 at 638 per Sir GM Giffard LJ).
MLJ 302 at 304 per Ong J, following Holland v Hodgson (1876) LR 7 CP 328 at 335, Ex Ch (eg where
blocks of stone are used without mortar or cement to form a stone wall). Similarly, large chambers and
towers used for the preparation of sulphuric acid, resting on but not fixed to foundations prepared for
them, have been held to be integral parts of one composite building permanently annexed to the freehold:
Pole-Carew v Western Counties and General Manure Co Ltd [1920] 2 Ch 97, CA (Eng).
3 Chua Sai Ngoh v Beh Ai Meng [1955] MLJ 167 at 169 per Thomson J (plank-walled house with pillars
embedded in substantial cement floors found to be a fixture).
4 D'Eyncourt v Gregory (1866) LR 3 Eq 382 at 396 per Lord Romilly MR, referred to in Material Trading
Pte Ltd (in liquidation) v DBS Finance Ltd [1988] 2 MLJ 162 at 164, [1988] 1 SLR 293 at 297 by Thean J;
cf Berkley v Poulett (1976) 241 Estates Gazette 911, CA (Eng).
5 Monti v Barnes [1901] 1 QB 205 at 207-208, CA (Eng), where Collins LJ found that the dog grates
were placed in the house for the improvement of the inheritance and with the intention that they should
become part of the freehold and were therefore fixtures.
6 Eg a millstone taken away for repair: Liford's Case (1614) 11 Co Rep 46b at 50a, 50b; Place v Fagg
(1829) 4 Man & Ry KB 277; Mather v Fraser (1856) 2 K & J 536 at 551; Moody v Steggles (1879) 12
ChD 261 at 267 per Fry J; and see D'Eyncourt v Gregory (1866) LR 3 Eq 382.

7 Eg the keys of a house: Liford's Case (1614) 11 Co Rep 46b; Elliott v Bishop (1854) 10 Exch 496 at
509 (on appeal (1855) 11 Exch 113 at 119, Ex Ch); Moody v Steggles (1879) 12 ChD 261 at 267 per Fry
J. As to an inn signboard see Re Thomas, ex p Baroness Willoughby d'Eresby (1881) 44 LT 781, CA
(Eng); Moody v Steggles (above).
8 Goh Chong Hin v Consolidated Malay Rubber Estates Ltd (1924) 5 FMSLR 86 at 91-92, CA, per
Sproule CJ, following Wake v Hall (1883) 8 App Cas 195, HL; Chua Sai Ngoh v Beh Ai Meng [1955]
MLJ 167.
MLJ 302 (tanks only removable by taking up the turf, concrete or tarmacadam, excavating the earth,
removing the concrete manhole boxes, unbolting all pipe connections and then raising the tank, with its
concrete sinker weights found to be fixtures); Chua Sai Ngoh v Beh Ai Meng [1955] MLJ 167 (the
supporting floors of the house could not be removed by complete disintegration and the pillars could only
be removed after the complete disintegration of the floors). See also Wake v Hall (1883) 8 App Cas 195
at 204, HL, per Lord Blackburn.
10 Buckland v Butterfield (1820) 2 Brod & Bing 54; Jenkins v Gething (1862) 2 John & H 520; Mears v
Callender [1901] 2 Ch 388; and see West v Blakeway (1841) 2 Man & G 729.
11 BBMB Kewangan Bhd v Kueh Teck Swee [2001] 1 MLJ 176 at 183 per Ian Chin J, referring with
approval to Billing v Pill [1954] 1 QB 70, [1953] 2 All ER 1061.
approval to Vaudeville Electric Cinema Ltd v Muriset [1923] 2 Ch 74. See also New Zealand
Government Property Corp v HM & S Ltd [1982] QB 1145, [1982] 1 All ER 624, CA (Eng). Cf Lyon & Co
v London City and Midland Bank [1903] 2 KB 135; approved on its particular facts in Reynolds v Ashby &
Son [1904] AC 466 at 474, HL, where similar tip up seats were found not to be fixtures as they were there
for a temporary purpose only.
13 Hobson v Gorringe [1897] 1 Ch 182, CA (Eng); Crossley Brothers Ltd v Lee [1908] 1 KB 86, DC; and,
similarly, where an engine and steam hammer are fastened by screws to stone fixed in the ground (
Metropolitan Counties etc Society v Brown (1859) 26 Beav 454 at 458), or a crane is screwed to blocks of
stone cramped together and laid on a prepared bed of mortar ( Re Armytage, ex p Moore and Robinson's
Banking Co (1880) 14 ChD 379).
14 Metropolitan Counties etc Society v Brown (1859) 26 Beav 454 at 459; Climie v Wood (1868) LR 3
Exch 257 (affd (1869) LR 4 Exch 328, Ex Ch); Gough v Wood & Co [1894] 1 QB 713, CA (Eng). As to
stills set in brickwork and let into the ground see Horn v Baker (1808) 9 East 215 at 222, 238. In Climie
v Wood (above) there was also an engine screwed to thick planks lying on the ground, and both engine
and boiler were held to be fixtures, but apparently the engine by itself would not have been a fixture.
15 Cross v Barnes (1877) 46 LJQB 479.
16 Boyd v Shorrock (1867) LR 5 Eq 72. Cf Hutchinson v Kay (1857) 23 Beav 413, as to which see
[270.228] note 5.
17 Holland v Hodgson (1872) LR 7 CP 328, Ex Ch.
18 Walmsley v Milne (1859) 7 CBNS 115; Longbottom v Berry (1869) LR 5 QB 123; and see Mather v
Fraser (1856) 2 K & J 536 (mode of attachment of the steam engines, boilers and mill gear fastened in
the mill not stated).
19 Wiltshear v Cottrell (1853) 1 E & B 674; and see Holland v Hodgson (1872) LR 7 CP 328, Ex Ch.
20 Reynolds v Ashby & Son [1904] AC 466, HL.
21 Material Trading Pte Ltd (in liquidation) v DBS Finance Ltd [1988] 2 MLJ 162 at 165, [1988] 1 SLR
293 at 298 per Thean J, following Gebrueder Buehler AG v Peter Chi Man Kwong [1987] 1 MLJ 356,
[1986] 1 SLR 344.
approval to Spyer v Phillipson [1931] 2 Ch 183.

[270.230]
Object of annexation
Although the immediate object of fastening an article, may be only to make it more
convenient for use, the article will be deemed to be a fixture if it is intended that it is to
remain on the premises for the remainder of the term as a means of more effectually
enjoying the use of the premises1. If there is such an intention, the article will be treated as
permanently attached to the premises even though it is capable of being moved from one
part of the premises and fastened in another 2. Hence articles and machinery necessary for
the use of land as agricultural land3, or of premises as a factory4, and attached to it in the
manner already described, may be fixtures notwithstanding that they could be removed
without substantial damage to the land or premises.
1 Khaw Joo Jeang v Koay Seng Chye [1960] MLJ 203; Esso Malaysia Bhd v Hills Agency (M) Sdn Bhd
[1994] 1 MLJ 740; Gebrueder Buehler AG v Peter Chi Man Kwong [1987] 1 MLJ 356, [1986] 1 SLR 344.
See also Boyd v Shorrock (1867) LR 5 Eq 72 at 79-80; Holland v Hodgson (1872) LR 7 CP 328 at 337,
Ex Ch; and see [270.228]. A carpet, even though affixed to the floor, may be repeatedly removed
independently of the existence of the term, and is not a fixture: Boyd v Shorrock (above) at 79; cf Young
v Dalgety plc [1987] 1 EGLR 116, CA (Eng) (carpet fixed to the floor by gripper rods held at first instance
to be a fixture; not considered on appeal).
2 Boyd v Shorrock (1867) LR 5 Eq 72.
3 Wiltshear v Cottrell (1853) 1 E & B 674 (threshing machine fixed to the barn as an adjunct to it and to
improve its usefulness was found to be a fixture); Walmsley v Milne (1859) 7 CBNS 115 at 131 (haycutter affixed to the stable as an adjunct to it and held to be a fixture); Holland v Hodgson (1872) LR 7
CP 328 at 339, Ex Ch.
4 Longbottom v Berry (1869) LR 5 QB 123 at 138 (where the mode of attachment of numerous machines
is fully stated); Holland v Hodgson (1872) LR 7 CP 328, Ex Ch (in effect an appeal against Longbottom
v Berry (above)); Hobson v Gorringe [1897] 1 Ch 182, CA (Eng); Reynolds v Ashby & Son [1904] AC
466, HL; Crossley Brothers Ltd v Lee [1908] 1 KB 86, DC; Mather v Fraser (1856) 2 K & J 536; Climie v
Wood (1868) LR 3 Exch 257; affd (1869) LR 4 Exch 328, Ex Ch; Gebrueder Buehler AG v Peter Chi
Man Kwong [1987] 1 MLJ 356, [1986] 1 SLR 344. In Lincolnshire Finance Co v Farrant (1886) 2 TLR
248, an engine and machinery were held not to be fixtures, but it is not stated how they were erected.
See also Fisher v Dixon (1845) 12 Cl & Fin 312 at 329, HL. Retorts, boilers, gas-holders and other
machinery in gas works are fixtures, but not the meters fixed on the consumers' premises: R v Lee
Inhabitants (1866) LR 1 QB 241 (a rating case). Buildings and machinery erected by miners working
under customs entitling them to the use of surface land were held to be removable in Wake v Hall (1883)
8 App Cas 195, HL. See also Gebrueder Buehler AG v Peter Chi Man Kwong (above) (equipment
installed in factory as part of a cocoa processing plant and securely fixed directly or indirectly to the land
or building as an adjunct to it enhanced the value of the factory and had become fixtures).

[270.231]
Displacement of presumption
The presumption that annexation of a chattel to the land is intended to be permanent can
be displaced by proved custom1. By reason of this exception to the English law of fixtures
in favour of proved custom, it has been held that Malay-type houses resting on stilts that
are not buried into the earth are moveable property2.
1 Goh Chong Hin v Consolidated Malay Rubber Estates Ltd (1924) 5 FMSLR 86 at 91-92, CA, per
Sproule J, following Wake v Hall (1883) 8 App Cas 195, HL.
2 See Kiah binte Hanapiah v Som binte Hanapiah [1953] MLJ 82 at 83, CA, where Sir Charles MurrayAynsley CJ held that that there is a settled custom in this country that houses of this type are regarded as
personalty in which ownership may be separate from ownership of the soil. This case is only applicable to
houses of the type mentioned: Harnam Singh v KV Sambasivam [1954] MLJ 251 at 252 per Spenser

Wilkinson J. See also Re Tiambi binti Ma'amin (1904) Innes 285 in which the court referred to the 'wellknown fact that up-country Malays frequently remove their houses from one place to another'; and the
Singapore case of Kwek Kim Hock v Ong Boon Siong [1954] MLJ 253. For a review of the authorities on
this issue see Chua Sai Ngoh v Beh Ai Meng [1955] MLJ 167.

[270.232]
Fixtures with removable parts
Where an article is a fixture, portions of it which are removable, but which are an essential
part of it, are also fixtures1. Electric lamps have been held, however, not to form part of an
electric light installation and so not to be fixtures 2.
1 Mather v Fraser (1856) 2 K & J 536 at 559; Metropolitan Counties etc Society v Brown (1859) 26 Beav
454 at 459; Re Richards, ex p Astbury, ex p Lloyds Banking Co (1869) 4 Ch App 630 at 635; Sheffield
and South Yorkshire Permanent Benefit Building Society v Harrison (1884) 15 QBD 358, CA (Eng); and
see Fisher v Dixon (1845) 12 Cl & Fin 312 at 330, HL. See also Gebrueder Buehler AG v Peter Chi Man
Kwong [1987] 1 MLJ 356, [1986] 1 SLR 344. These cases relate to machinery, but there appears no
reason why the principle they enunciate should not be of general application.
2 British Economical Lamp Co Ltd v Empire Mile End Ltd (1913) 29 TLR 386. See also Jordan v May
[1947] KB 427, [1947] 1 All ER 231, CA (Eng) (storage batteries held not to be an essential part of an
electric lighting plant, although they were necessary to its effective functioning); cf Young v Dalgety plc
[1987] 1 EGLR 116, CA (Eng) (fluorescent tubes contained in glass boxes securely affixed to the plaster
of the ceiling held at first instance to be fixtures; not considered on appeal). Doors and windows attached
to premises belong to a class of chattels made so completely a part of the land, as being essential to its
convenient use, that even a tenant could not remove them: Climie v Wood (1869) LR 4 Exch 328 at 329,
Ex Ch. See also the discussion in BBMB Kewangan Bhd v Kueh Teck Swee [2001] 1 MLJ 176 at 181,
where Ian Chin J expressed the opinion that doors and windows are fixtures, even though they may be
removed from a building.

A. meaning of_fixtures

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to A. meaning of_fixtures

Similar to A. meaning of_fixtures (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

A. meaning of_fixtures