Layout of the Building in UK Law

We have looked at some of the cases cited in Stroud, but I do not think they afford us any assistance. What is within the curtilage is a question of fact in each case, and for myself I cannot feel that this comparatively extensive piece of pasture ought to be so regarded, particularly where, as here, it was clearly divided off physically from the house and garden right from the start and certainly at all material times.

In my judgment, for one corporeal hereditament to fall within the curtilage of another, the former must be so intimately associated with the latter as to lead to the conclusion that the former in truth forms part and parcel of the latter.

Of the authorities cited to me, I derive most assistance from the decision of the Court of Appeal in Dyer v Dorset County Council, and in particular the judgment of Nourse LJ in the passage already referred to at page 358F-G. The expression "curtilage" is a question of fact and degree. It connotes a building or piece of land attached to a dwelling house and forming one enclosure with it.

Thus, the exclusion by the words of clause 2 of the underlease of "any part of the outside walls" would not have the effect of taking outside the operation of paragraph (a) that which, in the ordinary use of language, would be regarded as the exterior wall of the flat - an essential integral part of the flat, as a dwelling-house: that part of the outside wall of the block of flats which constitutes a wall of the flat, The paragraph applies to the outside wall or walls of the flat; the outside of inner party walls of the flat; the outer sides of horizontal divisions between Plat 20 and flats above and below; the structural framework and beams directly supporting floors, ceilings and walls of the flat.

The word "building" in section 11 (1A) (a) is not defined, and should be given its ordinary dictionary meaning of "structure with a roof and walls". The paved area in which Mr Edwards sustained his accident does not fall within this definition. I agree that, viewed on its own, the paved area where Mr Edwards tripped is not itself a building. In my judgment Mr Kumarasamy's legal easement over the front hall means that the front hall is a part of a building in which he has an estate or interest.

Item 2 introduces the concept of an "approved alteration of a protected building". It is possible to found an important part of reasoning in favour of the Commissioners on the fact that the alteration in this case was in a practical sense to the outbuilding, not to the House (see para 20 above).

We doubt very much whether it is right to construe the words of the section by reference to Regulations made under powers therein contained, especially when such Regulations are directed solely to procedural matters such as conferring rights of appeal in certain limited circumstances from an order of the local authority.