Page 1
2 of 8 DOCUMENTS
Spyer v Phillipson
COURT OF APPEAL
[1930] All ER Rep 457, Also reported [1931] 2 Ch 183; 100 LJ Ch 245; 144 LT 626; 74
Sol Jo 787
HEARING-DATES: 26, 27 January 1930
27 January 1930
CATCHWORDS:
Landlord and Tenant - Fixtures - Removal - Matters to be considered - Quantum of fixture - Purpose of annexation
- Extent of damage to premises or to article affixed by removal.
HEADNOTE:
The general rule that fixtures become part of the property demised and cannot be removed by the tenant has been
relaxed from the earliest times and these relaxations have been wider with the advance of time and changes of fashion
and custom. In considering whether or not a case comes Within the rule it is material to consider not only the quantum
of the fixture, but also the object and purpose of the annexation - whether it was to benefit the premises and the landlord
rather than to contribute to the tenant's own temporary enjoyment. So long as the article attached to the premises can be
removed without doing irreparable damage to those premises neither the method of annexation, nor the degree of annexation, nor the quantum of damage that would be done to the article itself or to the demised premises by its removal,
have any bearing on the question of the tenant's right to remove it except in so far as they throw light on the question of
the intention with which the chattel was affixed by the tenant to the premises.
Appeal from an order of LUXMOORE, J, in an action for an injunction restraining the defendants from removing
certain panelling from premises of which the plaintiff was landlord, and for other relief.
The plaintiff was the owner of a block of flats, No 74, Portland Place. The defendants were the executors of the late
Ralph Hilton Phillipson, who was the lessee of one of the flats. On 5 July 1912, Mr. Phillipson tool, a lease of the flat
from one George Paxton, the predecessor of the plaintiff, the term of the lease being for twenty-one years from 24 June
1912. The rent was 900 pounds a year plus something which varied with the amount payable by the landlord in respect
of rates, taxes and assessments, including water rate. The lease, which was in a usual form, contained a covenant that
the tenant would throughout the term substantially maintain and keep the interior of the demised premises and also the
doors, windows, skylights, stoves, hot water system, bath water, closets, cisterns, pipes, taps, drains, locks, keys, bolts,
bars, and all other fixtures and fittings therein belonging to the landlord in substantial repair. It provided for the painting
and general decoration of the demised premises, and that the tenant would keep the chimneys and windows clean, and
replace fixtures, fittings, or appliances broken, damaged, or destroyed with others of a similar character and of equal
value. The lease continued:
"And the demised premises so repaired, maintained, painted, enamelled, papered, grained, &c., and keep as aforesaid at the expiration or other sooner determination of the said term [the tenant] will (subject to any proviso hereinbefore contained) peaceably and quietly give, surrender, and yield up unto the landlord together with all fittings belonging
to the landlord including those mentioned in the list annexed hereto and all fixtures (usually denominated landlord's
fixtures) which at any time during the continuance of the said term shall be erected on or used or fastened to the demised premises and all improvements and additions thereto."
By cl 7 the tenant covenanted not during the term
"without the licence in writing of the landlord cut or maim any of the walls, partitions, timbers, girders, ceilings, or
other structures of the demised premises or any part thereof or in any way alter the plan, height, elevation, or arrangement of the demised premises nor erect any additional building thereon."
Page 2
[1930] All ER Rep 457, Also reported [1931] 2 Ch 183; 100 LJ Ch 245; 144 LT 626; 74 Sol Jo 787
In November or December 1920, Mr Phillipson had three rooms in his flat entirely redecorated. He had purchased
for 2,000 guineas some oak panelling of the Stuart period, dated about 1620, and that panelling was erected in one
room. In 1922 he erected in another room some valuable pitch pine panelling, dated about 1720. Evidence was given
that the value of the whole of the panelling put into the flat in the four rooms was somewhere in the neighbourhood of
5,000 pounds. When the panelling was put in, a false frieze was placed at the top of the panelling, and there was also
added a false ceiling. New chimneypieces were also put in two or three of the rooms.
LUXMOORE, J., gave judgment for the defendants. In his judgment he said: It is well settled that whatever is affixed during the currency of the lease to the freehold forms part of that freehold, and cannot be removed unless it falls
within certain well-known exceptions. In the case of landlord and tenant, from the earliest times relaxations of the strict
rule have been made, and these relaxations have been wider with the advance of time and changes of fashion and custom. [LUXMOORE, J., referred to Buckland v Butterfield (1); Elliott v Bishop (2); Re De Falbe, Ward v Taylor (3);
affirmed HL sub nom Leigh v Taylor (3); Minshall v Lloyd (4); Hallen v Bander (5); Holland v Hodgson (6);
Hellawell v Eastwood (7) and continued:] I have to consider what is the object and purpose of the annexation. Annexation is only one of the matters that has to be considered and may to-day be anything but the most important. The panelling and the mantelpiece's are valuable chattels, they were bought by Mr Phillipson for the purpose of decorating the flat
in which he was, and which he had for a term of twenty-one years. At the time he put in the oak panelling there were
only some thirteen years to run of his term. When he put in the pitch pine panelling there was still less of his term to
run, only some eleven years. I have to consider the interest of the person who puts the particular chattel into the property
and bear that in mind in answering the question: What was the object and purpose of the annexation? It would be a little
surprising if a tenant were to spend 5,000 pounds in purchasing panelling and put it in a flat to enjoy it for ten or thirteen
years and at the end of that time lose all interest in it, so that it belonged to a complete stranger, the landlord of the
premises. I have also to consider the methods of attachment. The report which has been made states:
"It does not appear that any portion of the structure of the rooms A, B, and C was altered in order to fix the panelling ceilings and frieze. Wooded plugs and nails were inserted into the brickwork as described in the answer to the question (iii)."
When you look at question (iii) so far as rooms A, B, and C are concerned, the panelling is stated to be fixed in the
same way in each of those cases, and it is said: "By inserting into the wall face a number of wooden plugs to which the
panelling is attached by means of screws." In those three rooms there has been a frieze put above the panelling and a
false ceiling above the frieze.
"The frieze consists in each case of a light wooden framework upon which canvas is stretched, covered with paper
or other similar material, giving the appearance of solidity. The frieze in itself is not fixed to any member either of the
panelling, cornice, or the wall, but is held in position by (i) a fillet attached to the top rail of the panelling, (ii) the false
bed moulding of the cornice, and (iii) vertical strips of wood nailed to the wall."
The false ceilings are composed of slabs of fibrous plaster screwed to the joists, the joists and screw-holes being
made good with plaster. It is held on the original ceiling by light ceiling joists which pass right across the room and rest
at their extremities on strips of timber called plates. Two expert witnesses were called, and each of them said that the
method described would be the ordinary way of affixing oak panelling of this kind to a room which had already been
built, whether it was to be fixed permanently or merely for a temporary purpose.
Considering, as I am bound to do, all those matters, what is the conclusion that I must come to in this case? I have
not any doubt that what Mr Phillipson was intending to do was to put up this panelling and to put in these chimneys and
to add to the decoration of the room (for the more complete enjoyment of that panelling and those chimneypieces) certain friezes and false ceilings and so on complete; for decoration it is true, but the whole object and purpose of his work
was that he could enjoy the panelling and chimneypieces for which he had paid large sums of money. I cannot come to
any conclusion that his object and purpose was merely to beautify the rooms of which he had only some thirteen years'
tenancy to run. I am satisfied that, asking myself the question, what was the object and purpose of the annexation of this
panelling and these chimneypieces? the answer must be, the enjoyment of the chattel by the purchaser. If that is the answer to the question, having regard to all the cases, the only conclusion I can come to is that these things have not become landlord's fixtures. They are tenant's fixtures and, being tenant's fixtures, they are removable by the tenant or his
executors, during the currency of his tenancy. Damage will be done to the plaster and the ceilings, and so on, and it will
be necessary to replace with skirting boards, window linings, and so on. Those circumstances are not, in my opinion,
sufficient to outweigh in any sense the other considerations which have led me to the conclusion that these are tenant's
fixtures and not landlord's fixtures.
Page 3
[1930] All ER Rep 457, Also reported [1931] 2 Ch 183; 100 LJ Ch 245; 144 LT 626; 74 Sol Jo 787
The landlord appealed.
NOTES:
Notes
Referred to: Webb v Frank Bervis Ltd [1940] 1 All ER 247.
As to fixtures and their removal see 23 HALSBURY'S Laws (3rd Edn) 489 et seq; and for cases see 31 DIGEST
(Repl) 199 et seq.
CASES-REF-TO:
Cases referred to:
(1) Buckland v Butterfield (1820) 2 Brod & Bing 54; 4 Moore, CP 440; 129 ER 878; 31 Digest (Repl) 216, 3434.
(2) Elliott v Bishop (1854) 10 Exch 496; 3 CLR 272; 24 LJ Ex 33; 24 LTOS 217; 19 JP 71; 3 WR 160; 156 ER
534; on appeal sub nom Bishop v Elliott (1855) 11 Exch 113; 3 CLR 1337; 24 LJ Ex 229; 19 JP 501; 1 Jur NS 962; 3
WR 454; 156 ER 766; sub nom Elliott v Bishop, 25 LTOS 150, ExCh; 31 Digest (Repl) 229, 3651.
(3) Re De Falbe, Ward v Taylor, [1901] 1 Ch 523; 70 LJ Ch 286; 84 LT 273; 49 WR 455; 17 TLR 246; 45 Sol Jo
294, CA; affirmed sub nom Leigh v Taylor, [1902] AC 157; 71 LJ Ch 272; 86 LT 239; 50 WR 623; 18 TLR 293; 46 Sol
Jo 264, HL; 31 Digest (Repl) 199, 3313.
(4) Minshall v Lloyd (1837) 2 M & W 450; Murp & H 125; 6 LJ Ex 115; 1 Jur 336; 150 ER 834; 31 Digest (Repl)
220, 3575.
(5) Hallen v Runder (1834) 1 Cr 141 & R 266; 3 Tyr 959; 3 LJ Ex 260; 149 ER 1080; 31 Digest (Repl) 199, 3311.
(6) Holland v Hodgson (1872) LR 7 CP 328; 41 LJCP 146; 26 LT 709; 20 WR 990, ExCh; 31 Digest (Repl) 206,
3376.
(7) Hellawell v Eastwood (1851) 6 Exch 295; Cox, M & H 452; 20 LJ Ex 154; 15 JP 724; 155 ER 554; sub nom
Halliwell v Eastwood, 17 LTOS 96; 31 Digest (Repl) 205, 3361.
COUNSEL:
NLC Macaskie, KC, and GP Slade for the landlord Robert Peel, KC, and JG Trapnell for the defendants.
Solicitors: Johnson, Weatherall, Sturt & Hardy; JD Arthur.
Reported by GP LANGWORTHY, ESQ, Barrister-at-Law.
PANEL: Lord Hanworth,MR, Lawrence and Romer LJJ
JUDGMENTBY-1: LORD HANWORTH MR:
JUDGMENT-1:
LORD HANWORTH MR:
This case raises a very interesting point. The matter that we have to determine is whether certain panelling which
was put into a flat is to be treated as a tenant's fixture, and so removable by the tenant or his personal representatives, or
whether it passed to the landlord by virtue of having been annexed to the landlord's freehold, or, rather in this case, long
leasehold.
It seems that a Mr Paxton, who had a long term from the ground landlord, Lord Howard de Walden, granted a lease
on 12 July 1912, of a flat at 74, Portland Place, to the late Mr Ralph Phillipson. It was for a term of twenty-one years;
thus it was determinable in the year 1933. The flat was an important one; the rent was 900 pounds a year, plus half the
increase of rates which should be imposed in respect of the flat beyond the rates at which they stood at the time of the
lease. The late Mr Phillipson was minded to decorate his flat in a way which suited his taste, in an expensive manner.
but a manner not at all unknown or very unusual at the present time. In 1920 Mr Phillipson put in some oak panelling; it
Page 4
[1930] All ER Rep 457, Also reported [1931] 2 Ch 183; 100 LJ Ch 245; 144 LT 626; 74 Sol Jo 787
was of the late Tudor or early Jacobean period, and in order to fix it there is no doubt that he removed a certain amount
of furnishings - the woodwork that would be put in the flat in the shape of skirtings, oak furnishings to the windows,
and the like. The panelling cost Mr Phillipson somewhere in the neighbourhood of 2,000 pounds. In 1922 he decorated
another room by putting in some pine panelling, also of an expensive nature, old panelling of about the date 1720. That
panelling at the present time has probably, according to the evidence before us, become enhanced in value. We have not
got the exact price which was paid for the pine panelling, but we are told that the panelling in these rooms, if removed
and sold to a willing purchaser, would pass to him at something like a price of 5,000 pounds. It is admitted that that sum
would not be obtained without finding a purchaser, but it is told us in the evidence that if a purchaser comes along who
is minded to possess such panelling the probability is that he would be prepared to spend round about 5,000 pounds in
order to acquire it. Those figures are comparatively unimportant; they take their proper place in perspective as indicating that the panelling was of considerable value, that it was of the nature of an ornament and a luxury which Mr Phillipson wanted to enjoy in the way in which it could be enjoyed, namely, by being set up in his dwelling-house, this flat at
Portland Place. Some little remark is made upon the fact that in July of 1922, a few months before the pine panelling
was put in, we find Mr Phillipson writing to Mr Paxton, who at that time was his immediate landlord, asking Mr Paxton's leave to remove a partition which was in room D, the purpose of the removal being to throw two rooms together
and get a larger room as a totality. Comment is made that he asked for leave to put up this panelling. In 1928 letters
passed from Mr Wheeler, an agent, to Mr Phillip son, it being suggested that, there being only something like five years
of the lease to run, it would be a suitable time for Mr Phillipson to secure a new lease, or, at any rate, an extension of the
old one. Mr Wheeler writes on 24 October 1928:
"As to the terms of a grant of a new lease, it is somewhat difficult for me to overlook the potentialities of the flat at
the reversionary date. I should imagine, having regard to the expensive panelling and equipment generally, that it would
demand a rental of 2,000 pounds per annum exclusive of rates and taxes plus a premium for a lease of twenty-one
years." Turning that into money value, it would look as if the additions which had been made by Mr Phillipson enhanced the value of the flat by more than 1,000 pounds a year, because it is not merely that this new rent is to be exclusive in the future of all rates and taxes, but the granting of a lease is also to command a premium. If I am not putting it
on too high a scale, it is difficult to estimate that increased value at less than 17,000 pounds or 20,000 pounds. That is
only a confirmation of the fact that what had been done by Mr Phillipson was to erect a very valuable panelling on a site
which was suitable for its erection. Mr Wheeler gives seine confirmation of his figures from another flat which he had
let, and there is a letter from Mr Phillipson of October 26. He is considering whether he would like to take a new lease;
the time was passing, and he was getting near the three-score years and ten. He says in the letter:
"The little inner suite alone, arranged and done with Mr Percy Macquoid (?) with the furniture, cost me about
20,000 pounds. It was then absolutely to period and much of it was earmarked as a gift to the Victoria and Albert Museum." Then other changes had taken place in his domestic conditions, and he looked at the matter from a somewhat different point of view from that which he had when the expenditure had been made. Mr Wheeler in reply reaffirms the
position which he has taken up, that the landlord's solicitor had informed him that "while you were under no obligation
to reinstate the partitions you removed at the time the alterations were made, you were not at liberty to remove at the
end of your term any of the wood panellings installed by you." On the other hand, Mr Phillipson took the view that he
was entitled to remove these panellings and was not prepared to leave them behind. I have only referred to that correspondence as indicating that it was clear that Mr Phillipson's intention was, so far as the law allowed, to remove the
panelling; and the view now presented by the evidence that they were of great value is abundantly reinforced by Mr
Wheeler's letters showing what a largely increased sum could be obtained for the flat in the condition in which Mr Phillipson had put it Unhappily, at the end of November 1928, Mr Phillipson died. The matter passed, therefore, to his executors, and on 1 March 1929, the writ was issued in this action he which the landlord seeks to restrain the defendants,
the executors of Mr Phillipson, from removing the panelling which Mr Phillipson put in.
After reading the judgment of LUXMOORE, J, I should he prepared to leave the matter where he has left it. He has
recounted the facts and given, if I may respectfully say so, a lucid judgment upon the law to which it seems unnecessary
to add anything. In deference, however, to the arguments that we have had, I will venture to add a few more remarks in
support of the judgment which we are now affirming. It is merely a truism to say that in our law anything that is affixed
to the freehold passes with the freehold and cannot, as a rule, be removed or severed from the freehold, but on that rule
there have been engrafted a number of exceptions, relating to fixtures which have been put in either by the craftsman
who has been working in the house, the tenant who has been occupying it, or a tenant for life in cases between him and
a remainderman. In all those cases exceptions have been engrafted enabling the tenant to remove what has been put into
the premises, not for the purpose of final inclusion in their structure, but in order that the tenant might enjoy them more
freely. The question that we have to determine in this case is: Do the facts which are before us compel the inference that
Page 5
[1930] All ER Rep 457, Also reported [1931] 2 Ch 183; 100 LJ Ch 245; 144 LT 626; 74 Sol Jo 787
this panelling was fixed so that the removal of it was no longer contemplated, that the panelling had been finally made
an integral part of the dwelling rooms; or is the right inference that the panelling had been put up with the intention on
the part of the tenant of removing it as and when he was minded so to do, and that the affixing of the panelling was only
for the purpose of the complete enjoyment by the tenant of that expensive panelling? It is to be remembered that this
claim on the part of the representatives of the tenant is made during the currency of the term. Different considerations
apply when the tenant has not attempted to exercise his right until after the expiration of the term.
We have had our attention called to a number of cases, but those cases are illustrations of how the law upon this
subject has gradually been relaxed in favour of the tradesman and certainly largely in favour of the tenant. When we
look at the cases themselves it will be found that tenants have been allowed to take away matters of ornament which for
their enjoyment required very considerable affixture to the premises. In particular, going as far back as 1703, we find a
catalogue of such matters as chimneypieces, wainscots, chimney- glasses, pier-glasses, hangings, and the like, which
have been allowed to be taken away. I pause for a moment at chimneypieces, because certainly for the safe enjoyment
of such a structure it is necessary that very substantial attachment of it should be provided. Here we have got this panelling fixed in the rooms, and it has been fixed, so the evidence tells us, in the only way that it could be properly fixed,
whether it was set up for permanence or whether it was set up with a view to its removal. Attention has been called, and
rightly called, to the fact that not only has the panelling been set up, but there have been structural alterations made to
the aperture for the fireplace, and chimneypieces either removed or covered over, that the furnishings of the windows
have been removed, and also that there have been ceilings attached to the original ceiling so as to make the ceiling more
in keeping with the proper period to which the panelling belonged. One little point arises upon that which I think it is
worth while calling attention to, a point which I made in the course of the argument. That is, that if, in the report of Mr
Head, an examination be made of his little sketch whereby - I think it is in Room A - it is seen how the panelling is set
up and the frieze above it attached to the wall, it will be observed that instead of attaching that frieze to the substance of
the wall itself care was taken to make a temporary structure of a framework of canvas, bringing that forward so that the
wall as it stood was allowed to remain in its original condition behind the frieze. It is said that that was necessary in
order that the frieze might be as nearly as may be in a vertical line with the panelling, but again I am by no means satisfied that what I have called the bracket which runs round the top of the panelling was a part of the original panelling or
whether that was not a part which had necessarily to be superimposed in order to fit the old panelling together. But in
any event it seems to me that that structure for the purposes of carrying the frieze was of the nature of a temporary structure faithfully preserving the moulding behind it, whereas a simpler, a more durable, and possibly less expensive method might have been adopted, unless a marked intention had been revealed to make the totality of the structure one,
which could be afterwards taken down.
I do not think we need go back to the cases beyond the tapestries case of Re De, Falbe, Ward v. Taylor (3). In that
case it is quite right to observe that there was a much lighter method of fitment than has been here adopted, but when
one looks at VAUGHAN WILLIAMS, LJ's judgment ([1901] 1 Ch at pp 534, 535) he says:
"There is this amount of consistency [in the cases] that, starting with the absolute rigid rule, Quicquid plantatur solo
solo cedit, there has been a consistent progress towards relaxation of that rule, and in my view there has never been any
substantial intermission of that relaxation." An obvious observation falls to be made. He is speaking in 1901. I am
speaking a generation later, in 1931. If, therefore, this case is not, perhaps, exactly within the decision or the rule
(though I think it is) in the De Falbe Case (3) yet it would only be another illustration that there has been a consistent
progress towards the relaxation of the rule against tenants being required to hand over their fitments to the landlord. He
adds this:
"In dealing with the question of fixtures it sometimes becomes material to consider the object and purpose of the
annexation, by which I do not mean that there must be an inquiry into the motive of the person who annexed them, but a
consideration of the object and purpose of the annexation as it is to be inferred from the circumstances of the case. That
being so, it is impossible to say that the only matter to be taken into consideration is the quantum of fixture." The observation there made is approved and followed by LORD MACNAGHTEN in his speech in the same case when it came
before the House of Lords, sub nom Leigh v Taylor (3) ([1902] AC at p 162). He says this:
"The mode of annexation is only one of the circumstances of the case, and not always the most important - and its
relative importance is probably not what it was in ruder or simpler times." We have got, therefore, a rule showing that
the tenant's right has been consistently and steadily progressively enlarged, that the quantum of attachment is a factor,
but not more than a factor, and not always the most important factor, for decision. Then one considers what are the other
factors. I think one must consider: Why was the article or ornament ever brought into the flat at all? Was it for the per-
Page 6
[1930] All ER Rep 457, Also reported [1931] 2 Ch 183; 100 LJ Ch 245; 144 LT 626; 74 Sol Jo 787
manent enhancement of the building itself, or was it for the enjoyment of the ornament itself? In Leigh v Taylor (3) in
the House of Lords, LORD HALSBURY says ([1902] AC at p 161):
"The principle appears to me to be the same to-day as it was in the early times, and the broad principle is that, unless it has become part of the house in any intelligible sense, it is not a thing which passes to the heir. I am of opinion
that this tapestry has not become part of the house, and was never intended in any way to become part of the house; and
I am, therefore, of opinion that this appeal ought to be dismissed." He says that the rule, whether it is between tenant for
life and remainderman or between landlord and tenant, regarding the attachment and so on of these factors is practically
the same. With that guidance before us, and with the definition of "fixtures" which STIRLING, LJ, gives in De Falbe,
Ward v Taylor (3) ([1901] 1 Ch at p 538) - which is also quoted, I observe, by LUXMOORE, J - "they are articles
which were originally personal chattels, and which, although they have been annexed to the freehold by a temporary
occupier, are nevertheless removable, and of course saleable, at the will of the person who has annexed them," I ask
myself the question: Is there any evidence of such fixtures as can compel one to come to the conclusion that this expensive panelling was put up some ten or a dozen years before the expiration of the lease in order that the value of the flat
might be enhanced to the landlord rather than put up for the purpose of the enjoyment of those ornaments by the tenant
himself? Ornaments may vary from one generation to another, but it would appear that at the present time devices are
resorted to to try to make a room resemble what our ancestors 100 or 200 or 300 years ago would have liked it to be.
That is still a matter of ornament at the present time.
The criticism that has been made, and quite fairly made, that one finds the tenant doing very considerable injury to
the premises by abstracting the skirting boards and the fitments of the windows and the like, has, to my mind, but little
bearing upon the problem. Quite true it is that the tenant thereby exposed himself to a liability for breach of covenant
and involved himself in a liability of replacement to a value which may be not inconsiderable; but yet all those are detailed matters, detailed risks which the tenant might be prepared to run in order to be able to set up this ornament that he
wanted to enjoy. He may have been quite conscious that he has committing a breach of covenant in cutting away these
details, but ready to run the risk, for at any time he could, of course, on terms have got relief from the proviso for reentry which was the safeguard against his committing this breach of the covenant. On these grounds it appears to me.
that the tenant has not lost his right of removal, that, although he is liable to reinstate, you cannot, to use the words of
VAUGHAN WILLIAMS, LJ, in De Falbe's Case (3) infer that the object and purpose of the annexation was to benefit
the premises and the landlord rather than for the purposes of his own temporary enjoyment.
In my judgment I agree with LUXMOORE, J, and the appeal must be dismissed with costs.
JUDGMENTBY-2: LAWRENCE LJ:
JUDGMENT-2:
LAWRENCE LJ:
The main point taken by the landlord is that the extent to which the tenant interfered with the demised premises in
affixing the panelling conclusively demonstrates that his intention was to improve the demised premises and not for the
better enjoyment of the panelling as a chattel. For the reasons stated by my Lord and by LUXMOORE, J, with whose
judgments I entirely concur, I am of opinion that the point so taken, in view of the other facts of this case, is not a good
one, and that the appeal ought to be dismissed.
JUDGMENTBY-3: ROMER LJ:
JUDGMENT-3:
ROMER LJ:
I agree. LUXMOORE, J, in the course of his judgment, after referring to the well-known passage in PARKE, B's
judgment in Hellawell v Eastwood (7) (6 Exch at p 312) said this:
"I think, in fact, taking that as two considerations, the real thing is one consideration; what was the object and purpose of the annexation? And one of the matters which has to be considered in coming to a conclusion in answering the
question, 'What was the object and purpose of the annexation?' or the two points to be considered are the mode of annexation, and what would happen if the mode of annexation is severed and it is sought to take the particular things
away." Speaking for myself, I think that that is a correct statement of the law. So long as the article can be removed
Page 7
[1930] All ER Rep 457, Also reported [1931] 2 Ch 183; 100 LJ Ch 245; 144 LT 626; 74 Sol Jo 787
without doing irreparable damage to the demised premises I do not think that either the method of annexation or the
degree of annexation, or the quantum of damage that would be done to the article itself or to the demised premises by its
removal, have really any bearing upon the question of the tenant's right to remove except in so far as they throw light
upon the question of the intention with which the chattel was affixed by him to the demised premises. That, I think, is
entirely consistent with the view that was expressed by VAUGHAN WILLIAMS, LJ, in his judgment in the case of Re
De Falbe, Ward v Taylor (3) ([1901] 1 Ch at p 536).
DISPOSITION:
Appeal dismissed.