In the recent decision of Marlborough Knightsbridge Management Ltd v Fivaz [2021] EWCA Civ 989 the Court of Appeal determined that the front door of a flat was not a "landlord's fixture", but was part of the essential structure of the flat.
Mr Fivaz owned 2 flats in a block owned by Marlborough. Mr Fivaz replaced both doors without reference to Marlborough. Some years later, Marlborough complained that his actions constituted a breach of the leases and sought a determination of breach in the first tier tribunal (FTT). Marlborough relied on a tenant covenant not to remove any of the landlord’s fixtures without the landlord's written consent.
The term "landlord's fixtures" was not defined in the lease. Although widely used, it is generally considered to be a difficult concept and a term to be avoided. A fixture is generally understood to be something which is annexed to the property and a landlord's fixture must by definition be something other than a tenant’s fixture (ie, one which is installed and removable by the tenant).
The FTT found that the doors were landlord's fixtures and had been removed. Mr Fivaz appealed successfully to the Upper Tribunal (UT) which concluded that the doors were an inherent part of the demised premises and were not “landlord’s fixtures”.
Marlborough appealed. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and held that the entrance doors were part of the original structure of the flats and, on that basis, were not landlord's fixtures.
When considering whether the doors were "fixtures" Arnold LJ commented, "The starting point when considering this issue is that every building is composed of things, such as bricks, mortar and so on, which were chattels prior to their incorporation into the building. Once incorporated into the building, however, they become part of the land. Thus their legal status changes from being personal property to being real property."
The doors were an essential part of the structure since they afforded privacy and security to the tenants. The absence of a door would derogate significantly from the grant of the flat. It could not be said that the construction of a flat was complete until the front door was hung.
This case provides some useful clarity on a difficult point of contractual interpretation.
