SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CIVIL JURISDICTION
[2005] QSC 211
BYRNE J
No BS5435 of 2005
| JOHN PARK AND LACHLAN MCINTOSH AS RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS OF PROPERTY AT AND SITUATED AT 276 SWANN ROAD, ST LUCIA IN THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND | Applicants |
| and | |
| GREGORY SHIRAZ LASRADO and GREGBURY PTY LTD and DAVIDOFF ENTERPRISES PTY LTD | First Respondent Second Respondent Third Respondent |
BRISBANE
..DATE 22/07/2005
JUDGMENT
HIS HONOUR: The applicants are the receivers of a house
property at St Lucia, appointed as such by the mortgagee. The
mortgage was granted in late 2004, by which time one of the
respondents, Mr Lasrado, had installed a large chandelier in
the entrance hall of the house. The question is whether that
chandelier is property secured by the mortgage of the land.
The receivers contend that on installation it became, and that
it remains, a fixture secured by the mortgage.
The chandelier is suspended from a dome in the ceiling of the
entrance hall. A part of the top of the frame is connected to
a U-bolt, which has a removable pin. A galvanised chain is
also connected to the U-bolt. That chain in turn passes
through a pulley system located in an attic above the ceiling.
The chain is independent of the ceiling frame and the plaster
sheeting and may easily be removed from the pulley system.
So, the chandelier is not attached to the pulley system.
The pulley system enables the chandelier to be lowered for
cleaning and repair. The ease with which the frame can be
detached from the chain, simply by removing the U-bolt pin,
would also facilitate removal of the chandelier for any
necessary offsite repair.
In short, the U-bolt arrangement permits detachment of the
chandelier whenever that may be desired, without damaging
either the fabric of the ceiling or the chandelier.
There is, I should add, an electricity supply, but all that is
needed to disconnect the electricity is to take out an
electrical plug.
On these facts, there is no affixation of the chandelier to
the house; and it is not in any sense part of the structure.
Rather, the chandelier retained its intrinsic property as an
essentially decorative chattel.
The contention that it is a fixture fails.
...
HIS HONOUR: The orders will be as follows: application
dismissed; further order that the first and third respondents
recover from the applicants their costs of and incidental to
the application, including reserved costs, to be assessed.
-----
- AGLC
- Park v Lasrado [2005] QSC 211
- Case
- [2005] QSC 211
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to determine whether the chandelier was a fixture that became part of the real property or remained a chattel. The court examined the method of attachment of the chandelier to the ceiling and whether it had become an integral part of the property. The chandelier was connected to a U-bolt with a removable pin and a galvanised chain that passed through a pulley system. The chain could be easily detached from the chandelier and the pulley system, and the chandelier could be removed without damaging the ceiling or the chandelier itself. The ease of detachment and the lack of any structural integration led the court to conclude that the chandelier remained a chattel.
The court ruled that the chandelier did not become a fixture because it was not affixed to the property in a manner that would make it an integral part of the structure. The ability to detach the chandelier without causing damage supported the conclusion that it remained a chattel. The court dismissed the application and ordered that the first and third respondents recover their costs from the applicants.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.