British Economical Lamp Co v Empire Mile End [1913] 29 TLR 3...

Facts

• British Economical Lamp Company (claimant) rented electric lamp fittings to lessees of a theatre owned by Empire Mile End (defendant).
• The lamps were attached to brackets in the theatre via bayonet fittings, allowing for easy installation and removal.
• After the lessees defaulted on rent, the defendant repossessed the premises while the lamps remained installed.
• Initially, the claimant made no demand for the return of the lamps; later, a demand was made and refused by the defendant.
• The claimant sued to recover the lamps, arguing they remained its property.
• The dispute centred on whether the lamps, integrated into the theatre’s lighting but not permanently fixed, were fixtures (part of the property) or chattels (removable personal property).

Issues

1. Whether the electric lamps, attached by bayonet fittings to the theatre’s electrical system, should be classified as fixtures or chattels.
2. Whether the method and purpose of attachment indicated intention for the lamps to become part of the real property.
3. Whether the original owner (claimant) retained rights to recover the lamps following the defendant’s repossession.

Decision

• The court determined the electric lamps were chattels and not fixtures.
• It found the bayonet fitting constituted a temporary, easily removable attachment.
• The lamps’ purpose was for use as lighting, not for improving or becoming essential to the property.
• The electrical system was functional without the lamps, and the lamps were not intended to improve or become a permanent part of the theatre.
• Judgment was given in favour of the claimant, entitling recovery of the lamps.

Legal Principles

• The distinction between fixtures and chattels is assessed by two main tests: degree and purpose of annexation.
• A temporary and non-damaging method of attachment, particularly where removal causes no harm, suggests the item remains a chattel.
• The purpose of annexation—whether for use or improvement—guides whether property is considered a fixture.
• Physical connection alone does not suffice; the intent and permanence of attachment must also be examined.

Conclusion

The court concluded that the electric lamps remained chattels due to their temporary attachment and installation for use as lighting rather than as improvements to the realty, thereby allowing the claimant to reclaim the lamps from the defendant.