So the question in the present appeal is whether, when the bungalow was built, it became part and parcel of the land itself. The materials out of which the bungalow was constructed, that is to say, the timber frame walls, the feather boarding, the suspended timber floors, the chip-board ceilings, and so on, were all, of course, chattels when they were brought onto the site. L.R. 7 C.P. 328, depends on the circumstances of each case, but mainly on two factors, the degree of annexation to the land, and the object of the annexation. The importance of the degree of annexation will vary from object to object. In the case of a large object, such as a house, the question does not often arise.
Annexation goes without saying.
But there is a more recent decision of the High Court of Australia which is of greater assistance. The Supreme Court of Queensland had held that the house remained a chattel. But the High Court reversed this decision, treating the answer as being almost a matter of common sense. The house in that case was made of wood, and rested by its own weight on brick piers. The house was not attached to the brick piers in any way.