Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Dissenting judgment delivered in case concerning ownership of historic stained glass panels in café
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
In a dissenting judgment of the Court of Appeal, Whelan J upholds the tenant's ownership of six historic stained glass panels, created by the renowned artist Harry Clarke, installed at a well-known café. The judge found that the panels, which had been removed and stored off-site for periods over the past 95 years, were not irrevocably integrated into the building's structure. Despite being housed within window frames, the panels were deemed to be tenant's fixtures, which the tenant had the right to remove without causing substantial damage to the property or the artworks themselves. The landlord's claim that the panels had become part of the building's fabric and were thus part of the landlord's reversionary interest was rejected. The judge concluded that she was unable to agree with the majority judgment of Costello J, and would dismiss the appellant’s appeal on all grounds.
Tenant's fixtures, stained glass panels, Harry Clarke, café, ownership, building structure, removal, Court of Appeal, landlord's reversionary interest, common law, trade fixtures, property rights, historical artwork, ornamental fixtures, window frames, Bain v. Brand principle, severance, right of removal.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
