High Court Judgment	Court of Appeal Majority Judgment	Court of Appeal Dissenting Minority Judgment	Supreme Court Judgment
Four Orders Works	Part and parcel of the premises and owned by the Landlord The four orders works formed part of the external skin of the premises at the time of installation and operated as conventional windows, admitting light and ventilation and weathering the café.	Part and parcel of the premises and owned by the Landlord Agreed with the High Court ruling.	Tenant’s fixtures The four orders works were not part and parcel of the premises but were tenant's fixtures. The four orders works were installed six months after the premises had been completed and the café opened and were not deemed to have comprised part of the original premises. It appeared that the tenant had paid for the windows, however there were evidentiary gaps. The High Court had erred in disregarding the effect of the ease with which the four orders works could be removed without causing any damage to the premises.	Part and parcel of the premises and owned by the Landlord No basis to conclude the four orders works had been installed as part of a double fenestration arrangement. They had been installed and functioned as windows. Tenant failed to prove that they had paid for the Works which was fatal to their claim to ownership and in turn their case
Swan Yard Works	Tenant’s fixtures The swan yard works were not part and parcel of the premises, but rather tenant’s fixtures. The swan yard works had been inserted parallel to existing windows and didn’t perform the functions of windows. Their objective purpose was based on their ornamental and artistic properties.	Part and parcel of the premises and owned by the Landlord Swan yard works were part and parcel of the premises, owned by the Landlord. It was found that the High Court had not placed sufficient weight on the ventilation properties of the swan yard works and held that these works were windows as a matter of law.	Tenant’s fixtures The swan yard works were tenant's fixtures. It was found that the swan yard works had never served a functional purpose as windows.	Part and parcel of the premises and owned by the Landlord The swan yard works had been designed, commissioned and installed to function as windows. The Supreme Court held that the double fenestration theory was highly implausible and wholly lacking either any supporting evidence or any coherent rationale.