Garraway, Alisha 10/6/2017

For Educational Use Only

Conveyancing: fixtures, P.L.B. 1995, 16(3), 18

P.L.B. 1995, 16(3), 18

Property Law Bulletin (S&M)

1995
Conveyancing: fixtures
© 2017 Sweet & Maxwell and its Contributors

Subject: Real property

Keywords: Fixtures

Case: Aircool Installations v British Telecommunications Plc (Unreported) (CC)

*18 Principles: Retention of title clauses can be overridden by the relevant items becoming fixtures of a building. The
ability to remove items and use them elsewhere will not prevent them from becoming fixtures as this will be dependent
upon the manner in which they have been attached.

Casenote: In the county court decision of Aircool Installations v British Telecom [1995] 3 CLW 18/95 a manufacturer
supplied air-conditioning equipment to a contractor with a retention of title clause protecting its ownership of the
equipment until it was paid. The contractor entered into an installation contract with the building owner without any such
clause. The equipment was installed and the contractor went into liquidation only partially having paid the manufacturer.
The manufacturer reclaimed the equipment under the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977. Judge Q Edwards QC
held that the purpose of annexation was for the greater comfort of those working in the building and this was highly
persuasive in favour of finding that the property was now a fixture. Although two of the three air-conditioning units
were merely placed on the ground immediately adjoining the exterior of the premises, they were linked by insulated
pipework containing refrigerant and electrical cabling and these conduits were carried through into the premises via
specially constructed holes in the wall with appropriate internal connections. The equipment had taken between one
and two weeks to install and would take two men four to five days to remove. These features led to the finding that the
items amounted to fixtures.

Guidelines: The purpose of annexation is only part of the test. The degree of annexation has to be judged by reference
to both the physical arrangements and the length of time it takes (or would take) to install and remove the items. In
contrast to the widely criticised decision of TSB v Botham [1995] ECGS 3; (1995) 15 PLB 58) (where the owner's case had
not been fully prepared, partially as a result of the claimant producing a very long list of items at a late date), it appears
the judge in this case was able to look at one particular item in detail and evaluate the relevant legal principles.

© 2017 Sweet & Maxwell and its Contributors

P.L.B. 1995, 16(3), 18

End of Document © 2017 Thomson Reuters.

© 2017 Thomson Reuters. 1