Land, Fixtures, and Chattels

What is land?
s4, Land Titles Act
(a) the surface of any defined parcel of the earth, so much of the subterranean space below and so much of the column of airspace above the surface whether or not held apart from the surface as is reasonably necessary for the proprietors use and
enjoyment, and includes any estate or interest therein and all vegetation growing thereon and structures affixed thereto; or
(b) any parcel of airspace or any subterranean space whether or not held apart from the surface of the earth and described with certainty by reference to a plan approved by the Chief Surveyor and filed with the Authority, and includes any estate or
interest therein and all vegetation growing thereon and structures affixed thereto,
and where the context so permits, the proprietorship of land includes natural rights to air, light, water and support and the right of access to any highway on which the land abuts;
s2 CLPA
"land" includes land freehold and leasehold, or of whatever tenure, and tenements and hereditaments, corporeal or incorporeal, and houses and other buildings, and also an undivided share in land;
An object brought onto land may be Lord Lloyd, Elitestone v Morris

Chattel

A fixture (treated as being part of the land)

Part and parcel of the land itself (treated as being part of the land)
Fixture/Chattel Test (objective, not parties intentions)
Purpose of Test

Test: Two considerations for determining whether the floating

dry docks are fixtures or chattels rested on: (a) the degree of
annexation; and (b) the object of annexation. (Holland v
Hodgson; endorsed and applied in Pan United Marine v Chief
Assessor)
Note (for mortgage cases):
o Contractual stipulations to the contrary do not negate
the accession of the chattel to the land (Gebrueder AG
v Peter Chi Man Kwong) i.e. even if the chattel is not
owned by the landowner, it still can become a fixture
Physical annexations outside the 3D space occupied by the
land does not prevent the chattel from becoming a fixture and
therefore a part of the land. (Pan United Marine v Chief
Assessor; Clarke Quay v Tan Hun Ling on duct which
extended beyond tenants land; on satisfying both the object
and degree of annexation tests, it was deemed to be a fixture)
Practical implications of something being a fixture vs
chattel
o Trespass
o Whether the fixture passes with transfer of land
o Whether the thing is part of a mortgaged property
(mortgagee may want to maximise the value of
securitised land)

Element 1: Degree of annexation

The degree of annexation looks at the extent to which the chattel is attached to
the soil and whether it can be removed without damage to itself or to the land
to which it is attached. (Per Parke B, Hellawell v Eastwood (1851))
o However, even where the removal causes damage to either the chattel
or land, the chattel may still not be regarded as a fixture where the
repairs may be made good.
o Almost the only immutable principle is the idea that some degree of
physical connection is necessary before a chattel can be said to have
become part of the realty. Gray & Gray, cited in Pan United Marine v
Chief Accessor (2008 SGCA)
If object rests on its own weight prima facie chattel unless it is shown that it
was intended to be part of the land Holland v Hodgson
Cases: Gebrueder Buehler v Peter Chi Man Kwong: Engines fixed to other
engines whole plant fixed to the factory floor factory, inclusive of engines,
was mortgaged but seller of engines had included a clause in the sale
agreement reserving to himself the title of the engines, so long as the purchase
price was unpaid CA held that engine had become fixtures and that the
engines were property of the mortgagee sellers only recourse was in
contract against the purchaser of the engines (mortgagor)

Element 2: Object of annexation

The object of annexation is also arguably more important than the degree of annexation
Pan-United Marine v Chief Assessor
Purely objective test taken from the POV of a sexless martian
Test: Were the items placed on the property to improve or promote the enjoyment of the
land rather than the enjoyment of the [item] themselves (Chief Assessor & Comptroller of
Property Tax v Van Ommeren Terminal (S) Pte Ltd)
Ornaments less likely to be fixtures: Botham v TSB Bank PLC If the item is
ornamental & the attachment is simply to enable the item to be displayed & enjoyed as an
adornment that will often indicate that this item is a chattel
Case: Pan United Marine v Chief Assessor: Docks (which were attached to the land by
way of a ramp) were integral to the tenants leasing of the property and so could be
deemed as part of the Property and subject to the assessment of annual value of the
Property for purposes of tax (Object + Degree satisfied)

Note: objects not attached to land may be deemed as fixtures:

In Chief Assessor v Van Ommeren, the court found that storage tanks were part of the land
though they were not bolted, cemented, or otherwise attached to the land. Two factors were
important. First, the nature of the chattel itself would impact how much weight to give to the
degree of annexation requirement. Heavy tanks aren't likely to blow away. Second, the nature of
the land. Pulau Sebarok is a barren piece of land. "In its natural state it could not be of any good
practical use other than as perhaps a dumping ground." This strengthened the inference that the
purpose was to improve the land.

Alternative test: Enhancement test

However, CA in Pan-United acknowledged the restriction of this test to the context of property text (this test was discussed in dicta and CA did not take a stand on which test to use)

Test: if a chattel is enjoyed with the land and enhances its value, it forms part of the land for property tax purposes London County Council v Wilkins

The enhancement test and the fixture test may not always be the same. For example, a structure may enhance the value of the land concerned, but may nevertheless not be considered to be a fixture. Conversely, a structure may be a fixture, but may not
enhance the value of the land.
Tenants fixtures Once a thing is deemed as a fixture, can it be removed by the tenant?
The crux here is parties intentions

Tenants fixtures are an exception to the rule that fixtures are part of the land and cannot be removed

Test: Where a tenant annexed machinery that was necessary for his trade which was carried on at the premises, or where he had put in chattels which were ornamental (eg chimney pieces, tapestry or paneling see Spyer v Phillipson),
they are regarded by law as tenants fixtures

However, sufficiently clear words in the tenancy agreement could effectively deprive a tenant of his right to remove tenants fixtures Riduan bin Yusof v Khng Thian Huat
Where a tenant enters into a series of consecutive leases with his landlord, his right to remove tenants fixtures survives renewal and he may remove them at the end of each new tenancy or at the end of the final tenancy Riduan bin Yusof v Khng Thian
Huat
It would be an expensive and wasteful formalism to require the tenant to remove his tenant fixtures prior to the grant of each new lease and reattaching them after Riduan bin Yusof v Khng
Tenant has the property in the tenants fixtures during the duration of tenancy because it was the tenant who has the power of dealing with the fixture during the tenancy BP Refinery v Amazon Ground Ltd