Consultation Paper on the General Law of the Landlord and Tenant

parties’ agreement. Furthermore, it should be made clear that thestatutory “default” provisions displace the common law.4.12 As regards the particular provisions of section 17, a numberof points may be made. One is that it relates to “personal chattels,engines, and machinery, and buildings accessorial thereto.” TheCommission is not convinced that it is necessary to specify theproperty which should be regarded as remaining in the ownership ofthe tenant (or that of any third party from whom the tenant may haveacquired it under, eg, a hiring or leasing agreement). Arguably thestatutory principle should be applicable to any property brought intothe premises by the tenant, subject always to the terms of the lease ortenancy. It may even be questioned whether an exception should bemade for buildings or constructions added by the tenant. 27 Section 17recognises “accessorial” buildings, and any other type of buildingwork would most likely be the subject of an express agreement.Apart from that, substantial buildings are not likely to be removablein practice and so another way of recognising the tenant’s interestshould come into play, eg, compensation for improvements. 284.13 Section 17 recognises the traditional categories of tenant’sfixtures, namely items installed for the purposes of trade, 29 agricultureor ornament or domestic convenience. Again the Commission is notconvinced that it is necessary or appropriate to put limits on theproperty which should be regarded as remaining in the ownership ofthe tenant. As suggested in the previous paragraph the statutoryprinciple should apply to any property installed by the tenant, subjectagain to the terms of the lease or tenancy. 3027282930Note the substantial constructions involved in Lombard and UlsterBanking Ltd v Kennedy [1974] NI 20 and Re Galway Concrete Ltd [1983]ILRM 402. See paragraphs 4.05-4.07 above.See Part IV of the Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act 1980: Wylie opcit Chapter 32. Note that the Commission has proposed dropping thestatutory scheme (see Law Reform Commission <strong>Consultation</strong> <strong>Paper</strong> onBusiness Tenancies (LRC CP 21–2003), paragraphs 3.38-3.40), but itwould remain open to the parties to negotiate such compensation.The section adds “manufacture” but it not clear that this adds anything ofsubstance to “trade” in the context of fixtures. In Re Galway Concrete Ltd[1983] ILRM 402 Keane J held that a batching plant, comprising twocement silos and two cement screw conveyors, was a trade fixture.One of the interesting aspects of the Galway Concrete case is that it was79