LAND LAW

LAND LAW I

ASSIGNMENT 1

PREPARED BY: AFIFAH BINTI MOHD SHARIF
MATRIC NO: 264805
PREOARED FOR: MADAM NAJAH INANI BT ABDUL JALIL
DATE OF SUBMISSION: 17TH NOVEMBER 2020

Contents

Page 3 & 4:
Discussing the definition

of land
Page 5 & 6:
Explaining about fixture
Page 7, 8 & 9:
Explaining the test to
distinguish fixture and

chattel
Page 10 & 11:
Discussing the exception
to the general rule

Page 12:
Reflection
Page 13:
References

WHAT IS LAND?

This dictionary provided simple definition of
the land that is easy to understand.

According to Oxford Advanced Learner’s
Dictionary, land can be defined as surface of
the earth that is not sea.

To be more specific Section 5 of

National Land Code (Act 56 of

1965) & Regulations provides that

details definition of land which

include:

(a) The surfaces of the earth and

all substances forming that

surface;

(b) The earth below the surfaces

and all substances therein;

(c) All the vegetation and other

natural products, whether or not

requiring the periodical application

of labour to their production, and

whether on or below the surface;

(d) All things attached to the earth

or permanently fastened to

anything attached to the earth,

whether on or below the surface; (National Land Code (Act 56 of 1965) & Regulations

and provided more specific definition regarding land that
(e) Land covered by water; can be referred by the legal practitioners in Malaysia)

As we can see, the definition of the land given under section 5 of NLC
covered a very wide area regarding the term of land. For the legal
practitioner who practicing in this field, they are required to determined
what is land and what is not constitute to land in order to solve the issue
arise regarding the ownership of the land. Section 5(d) has given further
explanation which cover the area related to fixtures. Even so, it does not
provide any explanation on how to determine the particular items
become a fixture or remain chattel. In general view, everything that
attached on the land will be considered as the part of land. However, if
we only rely on this one view, conflict of interest will arise later.

In the modern society, land has been used for many purposes. Many
items have been brought to the land which may increase the enjoyment
of the land. The issue arises to the determine the ownership of the items
which might differ from the owner of that particular land. It is important
to know when the items can be considered as the part of the land or not.
Therefore, few must distinguish between what is fixture and what is
chattel

WHAT IS FIXTURE?

Fixture can be defined as chattels which are so affixed to the
land or to a building on land as to become in fact part of the

building thereof.

Quic Quid

Plantatur

Solo, Solo

Cedit (This Dictionary of Law
provided the meaning of the
Latin Maxim)

This Latin maxim explain regarding the nature of fixture and its relation to the
land. This maxim simply means whatever is annexed to the soil is given to the
soil. It has become the general rule to determine what is fixture and what is
not. In the case of Minshall v Lloyd, the judges used the general rule to
determine the items attached to the land as the fixture. It was held that engine
have been part affixed in substantial manner to the land, so it is a fixture.
The maxim also had been adopted into the English Law and had been applied
in Malaysian cases in deciding the matter regarding the fixture. As the NLC only
does not provided the guideline on how to determine the fixture, the Malaysian
courts referred to English cases on this subject matter.

Facts of the case:
The owner of a mill mortgaged the mill to the claimant. The owner also under the
bankruptcy provisions relevant at the time transferred all of his property to a trustee,
the defendant. The trustee seized some of the looms which were attached to the mill
either by nails or by attachment to wooden plugs which had been drilled into the
floor for this express purpose. The purpose of the attachment was so that the
machines remained in place when in use because this was a necessary requirement
in respect of how they were powered. The machines could easily be removed
however, without causing significant damage to the floor. The claimant was granted
an order at first instance and the defendant appealed.
Issue:
The issue in this judgment was whether machines attached to a property became
part of that property. This ultimately resulted in a consideration of the distinction
that should be drawn between fixtures and chattels.

(This case illustrated how
the court determine an

item as a fixture)

Held:
It was held firstly that a consideration on this point must be made with reference to
the particular circumstances of the case. However, the approach was initially twofold.
Firstly, the degree of annexation to the property must be considered and secondly,
the purpose of that annexation should be addressed. Blackburn J’s comments at 335
provide significant clarity on this point: …blocks of stone placed one on top of
another without any mortar or cement for the purpose of forming a dry stone wall
would become part of the land, though the same stones, if deposited in a builder’s
yard and for convenience sake stacked on top of each other in the form of a wall,
would remain chattels.
In these circumstances, it was held that the purpose of the attachment was for the
use of the factory as a mill and therefore, the looms were fixtures.

TEST TO DISTINGUSH FIXTURE
AND CHATTEL

English Law provided two test that need to be used to determined
whether the item is a fixture or chattel. The two test namely the degree
of annexation and the object or purpose of annexation. These two test
had been explained in Halsbury's Laws of England.

Degree of Annexation

The first test concerned about the physical attachment or factual
situation of the items. It is an objective test. However, this objective test
raises a presumption that can be rebutted by the second test.

The question arise in this test is whether the chattel can be easily
removed without resulting damage to the land and to the chattel itself.

The first presumption is if an article is affixed to the land even
slightly, it is a fixture.
The second presumption is if an article attached to the land by its
own weight, it remains a chattel.
The third presumption is if the removal of the the article would
result in damage to the article, it is a fixture.
The fourth presumption is if the removal of the article does not
result in damage to the article, it cannot be presumed aschattel uless
we look into its purpose.

Purpose of Annexation

The purpose test can strengthen or rebut the objective test. In this test,
it rather look on why the article attached to the land.

The question is this test is whether the article attached is for the used
or enjoyment of the land or for the enjoyment of the thing itself.

If an article is attached to the land for better enjoyment of the land
as a whole so as to improve its usefulness and value, it strengthens
the presumption that it is a fixture.
If an article is attached to the merely for the more complete
enjoyment and the use of the item as chattel, it rebuts the
presumption that it is a fixture.

(This book provide clear explanation
regarding the degree of annexation
and the purpose of annexation for
the legal practitioner to refer)

Facts:
Tanks buried 2 feet below ground level, turfed over and covered
with concrete. Tanks are embedded in the earth. The tanks,
when places underground, were intended to remain there
Held:
It was held that the tanks are the fixtures.

In this case, it shows on how the court look upon the purpose of
the tanks embedded into the ground

Exception to General Rule
Law of Fixture

1.MBF Finance Bhd v Global Pacific
Textiles Industies Sdn Bhd (In
Receivership) & Anor [1993] 4 CLJ
379

Facts:
The plaintiff and the first defendant entered into equipment
lease agreement for the installment of 2 dyeing machine. In
that agreement there are provision regarding the ownership of
the dyeing machine still belong the the lessor even if it was
fixed to the ground. The issue arise whether the machines
under equipment lease agreement must continue under the
lessor.

Held:
It was held that if there is clear provision regarding the nature
of the fixture and that provision clearly stated the specific
limitation imposed on the ownership, the test in applicable.

2.Exception under Common Law

Tenant fixture
Trade fixture
Agricultural fixture
Domestic fixture

3.Exceptions under Customs

Re Tiambi bt Ma'amin (1904) Innes 285
Malay house by custom is a movable property. Malay
house is built upon bricks pillars with foundation let
into soil. Malay custom frequently remove their house
from one place to another. House is a chattel.
Kiah bte Hanapiah v Som bte Hanapiah
Wooden house are regarded as personality in which
ownership maybe separate from ownership of soil.

Reflection

For what I have study regarding
this topic and the articles that I
have found, it changed my
perspective regarding land matters.
It is a complex issue that need to
be paid more attention as it
concerns the rights if the people
over property. Without proper
research, we might neglect the
important part of land matters
which might lead to injustice to the
people. This topic is very
interesting and I might do more
research regarding this topic.

References

All Answers Ltd. (November 2018). Holland v Hodgson.

Retrieved from

https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/holland-v-

hodgson.php?vref=1

Hornby, A. S., Ashby, M., & Wehmeier, S. (2000). Oxford
Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English.
Oxford: Oxford University
Press.

Law, J. (2015). A Dictionary of Law. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Maidin, A. J. (2008). Principles of Malaysian land law.
Petaling Jaya, Selangor Darul Ehsan.

National Land Code (Act 56 of 1965) & Regulations