Broughton v Bower & Anor

Broughton v Bower & Anor

The expression 'undomesticated animals' bears its ordinary meaning, referring to animals not accustomed to being kept by or living with humans, brought under control, or tamed. The inclusion of horses, ponies, and geese in the consent order extends the prohibition to these domesticated species, but does not restrict the keeping of other domesticated animals. Undertakings (3) and (4) are independent; agricultural business use does not override the prohibition on keeping specified animals.

Parties
Claimant: Lady Delves Broughton; Defendant: Mr and Mrs John Bower
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal
Outcome
Appeals allowed; declarations made clarifying permissible animals and relationship of undertakings.
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Interpretation of Consent Orders, Definition of Domesticated and Undomesticated Animals
Property Law Contract Law Restrictive Covenants Interpretation of Consent Orders Definition of Domesticated and Undomesticated Animals

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lady Delves Broughton

Claimant

Mr and Mrs John Bower

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Meaning of 'undomesticated animals' in a consent order
  2. 2 Relationship between undertakings prohibiting keeping of certain animals and agricultural business use

Ratio Decidendi

The expression 'undomesticated animals' bears its ordinary meaning, referring to animals not accustomed to being kept by or living with humans, brought under control, or tamed. The inclusion of horses, ponies, and geese in the consent order extends the prohibition to these domesticated species, but does not restrict the keeping of other domesticated animals. Undertakings (3) and (4) are independent; agricultural business use does not override the prohibition on keeping specified animals.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; declarations made clarifying permissible animals and relationship of undertakings.

Orders

  • Discharge paragraphs (1) and (2) of the judge’s order dated 17th February 2005, including the proviso to paragraph (2).
  • Declaration that defendants are entitled to keep all domesticated animals other than horses, ponies, geese, female cattle and pigeons.