Boswell v Crucible Steel Company
[1925] 1 K.B. 119(Judgment by: Bankes LJ (including background))
Between: Boswell
And: Crucible Steel Company
Judges:
Bankes LJScrutton LJ
Atkin LJ
Subject References:
LEAVE
COVENANTS
'Landlord's Fixtures'
Judgment date: 20 October 1924
Judgment by:
Bankes LJ (including background)
In a lease of a house the term "fixture" means something which is affixed to the premises after the structure of the house is completed. It does not include things which form part of the original structure itself.
A tenant of business premises, the sides of which mainly consisted of plate-glass windows of the ordinary kind which do not open, covenanted to repair (inter alia) the landlord's fixtures:-
Held, that as the windows formed part of the structure of the house, the covenant did not extend to them.
Appeal from Divisional Court.
By a lease made in May, 1912, the plaintiffs let the ground floor of the premises known as 31 and 32 Borough Road and 69 Lancaster Street, Southwark, for a term of years. The premises were let for the purpose of being used as a warehouse and offices for the lessees' trade, and practically the whole of the sides fronting the streets in question consisted of plate-glass windows. The windows were of the usual kind, and were not made to open.
By the terms of the lease the lessees covenanted to "keep the inside of the demised premises including all landlord's fixtures in good repair." The lessors covenanted to "repair .... the demised premises with all necessary reparations .... except such repairs as are hereby agreed to be executed by the lessees."
In August, 1923, it was found that seven of the plateglass windows were broken by the acts of mischievous persons outside. The plaintiffs gave the defendants notice to replace them, contending that they were landlord's fixtures within the meaning of the lessees' covenant, and, on the defendants refusing compliance, brought this action in the Southwark County Court to recover the cost of replacing the windows. The county court judge held that the windows were landlord's fixtures and gave judgment for the plaintiffs. On appeal the Divisional Court (Bailhache and Roche JJ.) affirmed the decision of the county court judge.
The defendants appealed.
Greaves Lord K.C. and Done for the appellants. These windows were not fixtures at all. They were part of the walls of the house. The county court judge indeed held as a fact that they were not part of the walls, but there was no evidence on which he could so hold. If the windows were not where they are the house would cease to exist as a house. Then, if they were really part of the walls of the house, it is absurd to describe them as fixtures. A fixture is something which is put into a house after the building is completed. The county court judge relied upon a dictum of Willes J. in Clime v. Wood [F1] as supporting his view.
"Things may be made so completely a part of the land, as being essential to its convenient use, that even a tenant could not remove them. An example of this class of chattel may be found in doors or windows."
But all that the learned judge there meant was that windows were not removable by the tenant, not that they came within the description of fixtures. That external windows are properly regarded as part of the wall of a house appears from the language of Bramwell L.J., when delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Ball v. Plummer. [F2] That was an action by the tenant of a public-house against his landlord for breach of his covenant to do the outside repairs, among the repairs claimed being the mending of broken windows. His Lordship said:
"As to the question of the broken windows it was clear that the mending of them came under the head of 'outside repairs,' the windows being part of the skin of the house, and that therefore the defendant was bound to mend them."
Hon. Sir Reginald Coventry K.C. and A. H. Woolf for the respondents. All chattels which are annexed to the soil are fixtures. Such fixtures are of two kinds, tenant's and landlord's. Tenant's fixtures are those which a tenant is entitled to remove during his term. All those which a tenant is not entitled to remove are landlord's fixtures. It is clear the lessees could not remove these windows, therefore they are landlord's fixtures and the lessees are bound under their covenant to repair them. Willes J., delivering the judgment of the Exchequer Chamber in Climie v. Wood, [F3] treats windows as fixtures.
Judgment of Bankes L.J. -
I am of opinion that this appeal should be allowed. The question depends upon what the original structure of the house was. From the plan which was put in at the trial it appeared that this ground floor, which was of a total height of 11 feet, was enclosed in brick walls to a height of 3 feet 6 inches supporting plate-glass windows 7 feet 6 inches high, and occupying in width, on the Borough Road front 29 feet out of a total width of 33 feet, and in Lancaster Street 23 feet out of a total width of 25 feet; so that we have to deal with a building the ground floor of which was so constructed that its walls, or, to use what is perhaps the better expression of Bramwell L.J. in Ball v. Plummer, [F2] "the skin of the house," consisted to a large extent of glass. That being so the lease contains two covenants to repair, one by the lessees to repair "the inside of the demised premises including all landlord's fixtures," and the other by the lessors to repair the whole of the demised premises except so far as their repair is covered by the lessees' covenant, and the question is which party is to keep these windows in repair. The lessors contend that the windows are landlord's fixtures, and that the liability consequently falls on the lessees; but I do not think that contention can be allowed. It is impossible to say that windows such as these, forming part of the original structure of the house, are landlord's fixtures. The county court judge was wrong in law in holding that these windows were not part of the walls of the house.