FIRST TEST (DEGREE OF ANNEXATION)

Also known as adaptation test/damage test Mode & extent of the annexation Australian Provincial Assurance Co Ltd v Coroneo
Whether can be easily removed w/o injury to itself or premises

Connected with factual situation Objective test, rebuttable presumption Person who asserts the article as chattel has to prove otherwise Halsburys law of England that articles not attached to the land, than by their own weight are not to be considered as part of the land, unless circ are such to show that they were intended to be part of the land. Holland v Hodgson

If attached by own weight? Statues, etc

How secure is the object being attached? Will severing affect the land or purpose of the object (physical & conceptual damage)
Eg, windows & doors pulled from hinges w/o damaging the building but building will hardly called house; absence of doors n windows.
Conceptual damage

Not decisive, degree vis a vis intention

SECOND TEST (OBJECT / PURPOSE OF ANNEXATION)

Whether it was for the permanent & substantial improvement of the premises OR for temporary & complete enjoyment
Its a WHY question

Subjective test
Produced to rebut/ strengthen obj test

Purpose cn be inferred from surrounding circ Anything attached to earth that is constructed on the soil becomes the part of the soil and anything that is permanently affixed to anything that is attached to the land also becomes part of the land
Those attached to the land are known as fixtures.
Eg : built in cupboard in houses, air cond fitted into the walls, etc

Socfin Co Ltd v Chairman Klang Town Council

Nature of the above ground storage tanks to store palm oil Arguments : might be considered structures attached to the land, thus its a fixture Held : Storage tanks are annexed to the land so as to form part of the land. Ong J

Shell Co of Federation of Malaya Ltd v Commissioner of Federal Capital of Kuala Lumpur

Held : underground petrol storage tanks that were 2 feet deep below the ground & turfed over, with the intent that it should remain permanently should be considered fixtures Tanks when placed underground were intended to remain in site for as long as the filling stations cnue in operation

Material Trading Pte Ltd (In Liquidation) v DBS Finance Ltd

The question is a mixed question of fact & law that depends on the intention of the parties Onus of prove : owner of the equipment