Graham John Aylett v Timothy Francis O'Hara
Decision date: 19 October 2011
Neutral citation: [2011] UKUT 418 (LC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This appeal concerned whether a fenced riverside hereditament comprising a 50 ft river frontage, slipway, small wooden summer-house and shed used recreationally by four joint owners was domestic property for rating purposes under s66(1) LGFA 1988. The tribunal held the summer-house was not "used wholly for the purposes of living accommodation", the garden was not an appurtenance "enjoyed with" any owner’s dwelling, and the summer-house and shed were ancillary to recreational use rather than domestic storage. The appeal was dismissed and the appellant ordered to pay the respondent’s costs.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
Where a structure is ancillary to recreational land and used mainly for storage or incidental recreational purposes, it is not "used wholly for the purposes of living accommodation" under s66(1)(a); and land or a garden used separately and not enjoyed with an owner's dwelling does not qualify as an appurtenance "enjoyed with" living accommodation under s66(1)(b).
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The tribunal observed that premises used to store domestic articles will not fall within s66(1)(d) when that storage is ancillary to an otherwise non-domestic hereditament, and that factual distinctions (for example compared to cases about beach huts and riverside chalets) are critical in applying the s66(1) categories.