Boswell v Crucible Steel Company
[1925] 1 K.B. 119(Judgment by: Atkin LJ)
Between: Boswell
And: Crucible Steel Company
Judges:
Bankes LJ
Scrutton LJ
Atkin LJ
Subject References:
LEAVE
COVENANTS
'Landlord's Fixtures'
Judgment date: 20 October 1924
Judgment by:
Atkin LJ
This is an action on a covenant in a lease. The lessees covenanted to "keep the inside of the demised premises, including all landlord's fixtures," in good repair, and the question is whether that covenant included the plateglass windows which formed the greater part of the external walls of the house. I should be inclined to construe the covenant as limited to landlord's fixtures inside the house, so that even if the windows could be regarded as landlord's fixtures, the liability to repair them would not fall on the lessees. But it is not necessary to decide that, for I am quite satisfied that they are not landlord's fixtures, and for the simple reason that they are not fixtures at all in the sense in which that term is generally understood. A fixture, as that term is used in connection with a house, means something which has been affixed to the freehold as accessory to the house. It does not include things which were made part of the house itself in the course of its construction. And the expression "landlord's fixtures," as I understand it, covers all those chattels which have been so affixed by way of addition to the original structure, and were so affixed either by the landlord, or, if by the tenant, under circumstances in which they were not removable by him. As these windows were part of the original structure, representing the walls of the house, so that without them there would be nothing that could be described as a warehouse at all, they cannot come under the head of landlord's fixtures. If they could, every brick used in the building would be a landlord's fixture. I think that the county court judge misdirected himself on a question of law, and that the appeal should be allowed.
Appeal allowed.
- Solicitors for the appellants: Cardew, Smith & Ross.
- Solicitor for the respondents: H. Anderson.