What are the exceptions to the general rule laid down in

Holland v Hodgson?

QUESTION 8

FactsThe owner in fee of a worsted mill

mortgaged it to the plaintiffs. The owner assigned all his property to the defendants as trustees for the benefit of his creditors. The defendants then seized certain looms

which were in the mill that was mortgaged. These looms were attached to the stone

floors of the rooms of the mill by means of nail driven through holes in the feet of the looms. The looms could be easily removed

without damaging the floors.

HOLLAND V HODGSON (1872)

Held:It was held that the looms were

fixtures. They were attached to the floor other than by their own weight.

General Rule

The general rule laid down in this case is that

if an article is annexed (attached) to the land by

something more than its own weight, it is considered a

fixture and thus form part of the land.

Exception 1: Tenant’s fixturesDefinition: fixtures affixed by tenant

during period of tenancy Tenant has the right to remove the

fixtures affixed to the land so long as he is in possession as a tenant

If the tenant renews his term, then he is entitled to remove his fixture at the end of his new tenancy New Zealand Government Property

Corp v. HM &S [1982] 2 WLR 837

• When tenancy expires, tenant entitled to remove fixtures in reasonable time. If not, proprietor has absolute right to the fixture.

• Rationale: Intention to fix chattels to land is

temporary, not to increase reversionary interest of land owner

Not to discourage industry

Exception 2: ornamental fixture

Definition: Fixtures attached by tenant for ornament / convenience; especially ones that hold a sentimental value

- These are fixtures attached by the tenant for the purpose of his trade or business.

- General rule”things which are annexed to the land for the purpose of trade in so permanent manner as to become part of the land and yet the tenant who has erected them is entitled to remove them during his term or it maybe, within a reasonable time after it expiration.”

- a tenant has the right to remove tenant’s fixture affixed to the land so long as he is in posession as a tenant.

Exception 3: Trade Fixture

- eg : machinery attached to the floor of factory, areas installed in restaurant (these items are removable fixtures which shall not form part of the land)

- Raynold v Ashby / Hobson v Gorringe

Exception 4: Agricultural Fixture

e.g-chicken crop, processing machines which are brought onto the land for

agricultural purpose

Exception 5 : Proved custom

Where a custom exists in relation to a particular item that should be considered chattel in all circumstances and therefore can be removed by the claimant

Kiah bte Hanapiah v Som bte Hanapiah

The issue is whether a Malay traditional house which is built on stilts, and could be easily dismantled and removed from one place to another is a fixture.

Ansley CJ : There is a settled custom in this country that houses of this type are regarded as personality in which ownership may be separate from ownership of the soil.

Exception 6 : Chargor - chargee relationship

A purchaser or a chargee of the land has a right to all things if it is proven to be fixtures unless it was made clear that the things should not be part of the land.

Wiggins Teape (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. v Bahagia Trading Sdn. Bhd. and Ors

This is a case where a dispute arises between a chargee and the owner (chargor) of the object under hire purchase.

Held : the machine is a fixture as it was attached to the land and thus passes to the chargee unless it is provided for in the contract that the item is to be chattel.