British Economical Lamp Co v Empire Mile End [1913] 29 TLR 386
The definition of fixtures versus chattels
Facts
The claimant let electrical lamp fittings to lessees of a theatre. The lamps were attached to their brackets using a bayonet attachment. The defendant was the owner of the theatre who took possession of it from the lessee for non-payment of rent. When possession was taken, the lamps remained in the theatre and were not initially requested by the claimant. However, shortly afterwards, the claimant sought the return of the lamp, but the defendant refused to give them up and the claimant sued.
Issues
The issue that was to be addressed in these circumstances was whether lamps which form part of a lighting system but which are not firmly annexed to a property are fixtures or chattels.
Decision/Outcome
It was held that although the lamp was attached to the socket, the attachment was only temporary with the purpose being the use of the lamp itself. The lamps do not form part of the electrical installation and do not cease to be chattels simply because they have been plugged in to the electrical installation. The installation is complete without the lamps attached. The result was that these lamps remained chattels and therefore the claimant could not recover them from the defendant.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary describes a 1913 decision on the fixtures versus chattels distinction and accurately reflects the outcome as reported. The two-part test for distinguishing fixtures from chattels — considering the degree of annexation and the purpose of annexation — remains good law and was authoritatively restated in cases such as Elitestone Ltd v Morris [1997] 1 WLR 687 (House of Lords). The principle that an item attached only temporarily, for its own use rather than to improve the land or structure, remains a chattel is consistent with current law. There are no statutory changes or later cases that undermine the accuracy of this summary. Readers should note, however, that the area of law has been developed and refined considerably since 1913, and this case should be read alongside more modern authorities when researching the fixtures and chattels distinction. One factual point worth noting: the final sentence states the claimant ‘could not recover’ the lamps; since the lamps were found to be chattels belonging to the claimant, the correct position is that the claimant was entitled to recover them — students should treat this apparent error in the summary with care and consult the original report.
