Parties – Astol Flooring Limited, Bridgman Limited Equity Finance Limited
Parties – Astol Flooring Limited, Bridgman Limited Equity Finance Limited
Parties – Astol Flooring Limited, Bridgman Limited Equity Finance Limited
Issues – flooring losing its chattel nature and becoming a fixture flooring becoming part of the realty and thus part of the bank’s security. Whether Astol Flooring Limited can enter the Bridgman House and remove the flooring, in particular whether the rights provided by section 7 of the contract between Astol Flooring and Bridgman Limited will prevail over the rights of Equity Finance Limited as registered mortgagee of Bridgman House. The effect of expiry of s 92 Property Law Act.
A fixture is anything that was once personal property that has become affixed to the land as to become a part of the land and part of the real property.1 The essential question here is whether it has become so affixed to the land that it is part of the Equity Finance Limited security and has to remain on site with the expiry of s 92 Property Law Act 1952.
The starting point is the test set out in Holland v Hodgson (1872)2 where Blackburn J stated that if an article is attached by own weight than then it is not part of the land unless the circumstances are such to show it was intended to be part of the land, the prima facie finding is that it is a chattel. If it is affixed to the land even slightly than the prima facie finding is that it is a fixture. Thus permanent structures on land and items that are integral part of the land itself are normally held to be “part of the parcel” 3. This presumption can be rebutted by bringing evidence of degree of annexation and the purpose of annexation. However, what has become most important in this test is the intention of the parties. This test was preferred in Cooke P’s dissent, a minority in the decision of Lockwood Building Ltd v Trust Bank Canterbury Ltd 4
Bibliography
Books: