Material Trading Pte Ltd v DBS Finance Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: L P Thean J
• Judgment Date: 15 February 1988
• Neutral Citation: [1988] SGHC 17
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 150 of 1987
• Date: 15 February 1988
• Year: 1988
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ng Chai Ngee (Chan Cher Boon & Partners)
• Citation: [1988] SGHC 17
• Defendant Counsel: Deborah Barker (Khattar Wong & Partners)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Personal chattels,Personal Property,Whether overhead cranes fixtures or chattels,Overhead cranes on steel runways,Overhead cranes not attached to buildings but steel runways attached to buildings,Chattels,Credit and Security,Mortgage of personal property

Cur Adv Vult

The facts in this case are not in dispute and, so far as material, are these. At all material times, the plaintiffs were the lessees of two plots of land, marked on the government resurvey map as lots 658 and 659 of Mukim VI situate at Enterprise Road, Singapore 2262, holding the same under an instrument of lease dated 1 September 1983 from Jurong Town Corporation for a term of 30 years commencing from 16 July 1978. Erected on the land are two warehouses, Warehouse 1 and Warehouse 2, known as No 19, Enterprise Road Singapore 2262. Under the lease, the land and the warehouses were to be used for `storage of hardware materials, eg steel plates, pipes and angles only`. The defendants were the mortgagees of the land and premises by virtue of four instruments of mortgages all dated 22 June 1985.

Installed in the warehouses are three Kito overhead cranes, namely, two three-ton overhead cranes in Warehouse 1 and one five-ton overhead crane in Warehouse 2. Kito overhead cranes are manufactured by Kito Company Ltd of Japan. Each of the three-ton cranes has a long steel girder with a span of approximately 18 metres and each end of the girder rests on an end truck frame. The girders and the end truck frames are not attached to any part of the buildings but are mounted on steel runways in this way: below the end truck frames are the wheels which rest on and move along the rails on the steel runways. The steel runways, one on each side of the building, rest on and are welded to the steel beams which run horizontally overhead and lengthwise at the side along the walls of the buildings. The steel beams are in turn supported by steel columns erected vertically along the walls. The five-ton overhead crane has a double girder with a span of approximately 33 metres and in other respects are similar to the three-ton cranes and is similarly mounted on steel runways. The cranes are operated by electricity and are connected by cables to the electrical mains.

The plaintiffs went into liquidation on 17 September 1986, or thereabout, and liquidators were appointed for the purpose of the winding up. The liquidators sold the plaintiffs` movables by way of an auction, and on 4 October 1986, the three overhead cranes were sold for $12,000. The steel girders, the end truck frames and other accessories were then lifted off their runways and brought to ground level, and they were in the process of being removed from the warehouses by the purchaser when the defendants, by their solicitors, gave notice to the liquidators on 28 October 1986, objecting to such removal and claiming that the cranes were fixtures forming part of the land, and therefore are subject to the mortgages created in their favour. Discussion then ensued between the liquidators and the defendants and eventually it was agreed that those parts that were lifted off the runways be left on the ground and that in the event that the court should determine that the cranes are chattels, the defendants would pay to the plaintiffs a sum of $15,000 representing the price of the cranes and the costs of reinstalling them. Accordingly, on 9 February 1987, the liquidators instituted these proceedings for a declaration that the three overhead cranes are chattels belonging to the plaintiffs and an order that the defendants pay to the plaintiffs a sum of $15,000 pursuant to the agreement made between them.

It is submitted by Miss Ng on behalf of the plaintiffs that the cranes are not fixtures but are movables; they are not affixed in any way to the buildings but travel along the steel runways and can be easily removed without any damage whatsoever to the runways or the steel framework upon which they rest or to other parts of the structure of the buildings. Furthermore, the steel runways are capable of accommodating more than one crane, and this indicates that the cranes may easily be replaced, substituted or interchanged for use in either of the warehouses without any destruction or damage to the structure of the runways or the buildings. In support of her contentions, she relies on Hutchinson v Kay 53 ER 163 and Hulme v Brigham and Anor [1943] 1 All ER 204.

On behalf of the defendants, it is submitted by Miss Barker that the runways are an integral part of the cranes, and as the runways have been permanently affixed to the buildings, the cranes are therefore fixtures and have become a part of the buildings. In support of her contention, she relies on Holland & Anor v Hodgson & Anor (1872) LR 7 CP 328 and Reynolds v Ashby & Son [1904] AC 466. She further submits that even if the cranes are not affixed to the buildings through the runways, they are an essential part of the buildings as warehouses and a necessary adjunct to the buildings. Numerous authorities have been cited in support of this point including D`Eyncourt v Gregory (1866) LR 3 Eq 382, Monti v Barnes [1981] 1 QB 205 and Vaudeville Electric Cinema Ltd v Muriset [1923] 2 Ch 74.

The question whether the cranes are fixtures or movables is a mixed question of law and fact, depending upon the intention with which they must be taken to have been placed in...