Annexation: A Case Study

The formula for identification of chattel from fixture is recognised as being more simplistic to define in theory than to apply. The role of actual intention in determining the purpose of annexation is one area of particular contention. The historical position has been to ignore any impute from the respective parties regarding their actual intention, but modern courts have begun to see it in a more favourable light. Whilst acknowledging that when third parties are involved matters are more complicated, Emeritus Professor Peter Butt has raised the question as to why courts should ignore parties’ actual intention regarding whether something is a fixture or chattel, when there are only two parties involved. There is an argument why placing greater …show more content…
In National Australia Bank Ltd v Blacker Conti J observed: “[t]here is no single test which is sufficient to determine whether an item of the property is a chattel or a fixture. It is clear that the court ought to have regard to all the circumstances of the case in making its determination… No particular factor has primacy and each case depends on its own facts…”
This is consistent with the idea that the doctrine of fixtures is determined on a case by case basis reflected in both common law and statute, but also opens up the avenue of inquiry. It also acknowledges the limitations of only taking an objective, factual approach. Only so much can be gained by looking at the facts alone without context to place those facts in. A clear example is found in Power Rental Op Co Australia, LLC v Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (in liq). The case involved a complicated decision of whether four leased wind turbines had become fixtures or had retained the status of chattel. In her judgement, Ward JA acknowledged in obiter that “the common intention of the parties, objectively ascertained, is capable (if appropriately proved…) of shedding light on the purpose of the annexation of the chattel in question”. The respondents of the case in question successful proved objectively, their actual intention to only lease the wind turbines for the period they were required. As such all modes of annexation were for the better enjoyment of the turbines, rather than the …show more content…
For example, in Elitestone Ltd v Morris the former court’s reliance on the bare facts caused Aldous L.J. to err in law. His Honour, became to fixed on the fact that the bungalow was only attached to the land by its’ own weight, and failed to take into consideration other clear evidence that the common intention was that the bungalow was to become part of the land and ruled that the bungalow was a chattel. As a result, Mr Morris had to engage in further litigation, where at the House of Lords, it was determined that the bungalow was in actuality a fixture, when all evidence was taken into consideration. The deciding judges of this case maintained that subjective intention holds no weight but careful examination of the respective judgements show that they do in fact consider actual intent, they just refrain from acknowledging