The claimant said that the keeping of various animals by the defendant on their land was in breach of a restrictive covenant and of a compromise agreement which also used the phrase ‘undomesticated animals’. The judge had held that this did not include animals normally kept as pets or were akin to pets.
Held: The appeal succeeded. All of the animals listed were ‘of species which are accustomed to being kept by or to living with humans, brought under their control and tamed.’ and ‘it is an impermissible process of construction to interpret words prefaced by ‘including’ as transmuting that in which they are included into something altogether different from what it would be without them. In the present case it is plain that the words ‘including horses, ponies and geese’ cannot have that effect. All that they do is to extend the meaning of the expression so far as is necessary to prohibit the keeping of three species of domesticated animals. ‘
Judges:
Sir Martin Nourse, Lord Justice Buxton, Lord Justice Neuberger
Citations:
[2006] EWCA Civ 632
Links:
Statutes:
Protection of Animals Act 1911 15(b)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Animals, Land
Updated: 11 September 2022; Ref: scu.242181