As to whether air conditioners are fixtures, in Irene Loong v Pun Tsun Hang  HKDCLR 192, the Court held that a window-type air conditioner was prima facie of a fixture, since it could not be enjoyed separately from a room; its purpose was clearly to improve the premises, in this case a ballroom. By contrast in Yu Yiu Kong Samuel v Kobylanski Stephen Andre  DCCJ No. 15371/2000 the Court held that a window-type conditioner was not a fixture:
If the item was intended to be permanent and to afford a lasting improvement to the land or building, it would be a fixture. If the attachment was intended to be temporary and no more than necessary for the use and enjoyment of the item, it remained a chattel… the air conditioning unit in question was not only temporary and could have been removed without much damage to the wall. Such an air conditioner was no different in nature from ceiling fan or wall lamp. All these items were chattels rather than fixtures.
In Penta Continental Land Investment Co Ltd v Chung Kwok Restaurant Ltd  HKDCLR 22, the Court held that three air conditioning machines placed in a garage adjoining the restaurant, which was bolted to frames not attached to the building but merely rested on the floor, were not fixtures. By contrast in Orient Leasing (Hong Kong) Ltd v NP Etches  HKLR 292, the Court held that an air conditioning system which was an integrated part of a multi-storey building was a fixture.