Tutorial answers.

Question 1
As pursuant to Section 5 of the National Land Code, “Land” includes,
a) The surface of the earth and all substances forming that surface.
b) The earth below the surface and all substances therein
c) All 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
e) Land covered by water.

Question 2
Fixtures is any items attached to the land or a building on a land which are not
removable. It forms part of the land. According to the case of Holland v. Hodgson,
the legal maxim for fixtures is “maxim quic quid plantatur solo solo cedit” which
means; whatever is affixed to the soil belongs to the soil. The case of Holland v.
Hodgson clarifies the controversy surrounding when a chattel has become a
fixture, which is also to determine whether the maxim quic quid plantatur solo
solo cedit will be applicable in the circumstance.
In this case, the defendant (Mill’s owner) conveyed the property to the plaintiff
by way of mortgage to secure the repayment of a loan. The conveyance expressly
included the buildings, a steam engine and “all other fixtures whatsoever which
now or at any time hereafter during the continuance of this security shall be set
up and affixed to the said hereditament”.
There were over 400 looms installed in the Mill. The Mill had been specially
adapted for the steam-powered looms; and in order to keep the looms steady and
in their proper position for working, they were fastened to the floors by nails
driven through the holes in their feet into wooden plugs in the floor. However,
the looms could easily be removed without serious damage to the floors. The
question for the court was whether the looms were fixtures forming part of the
land or whether they remained chattels. It was held that the looms had become
fixtures and thus formed part of the land mortgaged.
Thus, a two-step test was developed to determine whether an object is a fixture
or not. It requires looking at the degree of fixation, and the intention relating to
the annexation.
Degree of annexation test: If an article is affixed to the land even slightly, the
presumption is that it is a fixture and if an article is attached to the land by its own
weight, it remains a chattel.
Purpose/object of annexation test: If there is no physical attachment to the land
then, the presumption is that it is a chattel. However, Blackburn J. in Holland v.
Hodgson explained that; if the intention is apparent to make the articles part of
the land, they do become part of the land. Thus, intention in this context is to be
assessed objectively and not subjectively. It is the purpose which the object is
serving which must be regarded, not the purpose of the person who put it there.

Question 3
By applying the two tests applied in the case of Holland v Hodgson; the degree
of annexation test and purpose of annexation test. Also, the damage factor which
if it is likely to cause more damage upon removal, the more likely that it forms
part of the land(fixtures). Vice versa.
Question 4
The general rule is that fixtures must not be removed as the legal maxim: quicquid
plantatur solo, solo cedit. However, this general rule is subjected to three
exceptions: The first exception is Custom whereby, a custom exists in relation to
an item that should be considered a chattel in all circumstances, it can be removed
by the owner of the item. For instance, the Malay wooden house by custom is
moveable property even when the usual Malay plank house is built upon bricks
and pillars with foundations let into the soil, the house is nevertheless a chattel.
Such exception was applied in the case of Kiah Hanapiah v. Som, whereby the
court held that if a Malay traditional house built on stilts, which could easily be
dismantled and removed will be considered as a chattel. Next, written agreement.
Whereby, there is an express provision regarding the nature of the fixture and
such provision has clearly specified the limitations imposed on the ownership of
the fixture, the item will pass with ownership.

Question 5
1. (chattels)
2. (Fixtures)
3. (fixtures)
4. (Fixtures)
5. (fixtures)
Question 6
Land as pursuant to section 5(d) of NLC includes, all things attached to the earth
or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth, whether on or below
the surface.
In order to determine whether an item forms part of the land, it is important to
identify what constitutes as a fixture and a chattel. Fixture is any immovable items
which are attached to the land or a building on the land. Thus, become part of the
land or building. While, a chattel is any removable items which are attached to
the land and will not form part of the land. To determine whether the item is a
fixture or chattel, the two tests applied in the Holland v Hodgson can be used.
They are;

Degree of annexation test: If an article is affixed to the land even slightly, the
presumption is that it is a fixture and if an article is attached to the land by its own
weight, it remains a chattel.
Purpose/object of annexation test: If there is no physical attachment to the land
then, the presumption is that it is a chattel. However, Blackburn J. in Holland v.
Hodgson explained that; if the intention is apparent to make the articles part of
the land, they do become part of the land. Thus, intention in this context is to be
assessed objectively and not subjectively. It is the purpose which the object is
serving which must be regarded, not the purpose of the person who put it there.
There is a legal maxim on Fixtures mentioned in the same case, by Blackburn J.;
Quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit ("whatever is affixed to the soil belongs to
the soil”). Hence, it is nearly impossible to remove any items from the land except
in some exceptions; tenant’s trade fixtures. Whereby, any items attached to the
land for the purpose of business, is removable. As in the case of Mather v Fraser,
the court held that “where and article is affixed by the owner of the fee, though
only affixed by bolts and screws, it is to be considered part of the land, at all
events when the object of setting up the articles is to enhance the value of the
premises to which it is annexed for the purpose to which those premises are
applied”.
In the presence case, Hud during the period as a proprietor of the land had added
many new items onto the land for the purpose of his business (a restaurant). Thus,
pursuant to the exception provided (tenant’s trade fixtures), the items is
removable and he can take them with him to his new place upon the expiration of
the lease.