The Propane Company Limited v Dawn Bunyan (Valuation Officer)
Decision date: 14 July 2022
Neutral citation: [2022] UKUT 237 (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 parts of a non-domestic hereditament at Court Lodge Farm (two stable blocks, a mess room and a hay store) were domestic appurtenances of the adjacent Oast House at the material date (1 April 2010). Applying the factors from Bigwood (nature and function, proximity and general layout), the Tribunal held that Stables 1 and the Mess room were appurtenant to the Oast House and therefore domestic, while Stables 2 and the Hay store were not and remained non-domestic. The Tribunal also found that separate ownership did not automatically preclude appurtenance status in the factual circumstances.
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
Appurtenance status under s.66(1)(b) LGFA 1988 is to be assessed by reference to the nature and function of the structures and their proximity and general layout relative to the dwelling (applying the Bigwood factors), rather than by importing a separate curtilage concept; and separate legal ownership of buildings does not automatically prevent them being appurtenances—the effect of ownership depends on the identity of owners and the factual relationship between the buildings and the dwelling.
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 decision observes (not as binding ratio) that size or scale of equestrian buildings is not determinative of appurtenance status, and that ownership and past unity of ownership are relevant factors to consider but are not necessarily determinative.