FOCUS ON CASE LAW
Yarmouth v France – [1887] 4 TRL 1, 19 QBD 647
“There is no definition of plant in the Act: but, in its ordinary sense, it includes whatever apparatus is used by a businessman for carrying on his business – not his stock-in-trade which he buys or makes for sale; but all goods and chattels, fixed or moveable, live or dead, which he keeps for permanent employment in his business.”.
Why does it matter?
This case, that has been referred to repeatedly for well over a century, had nothing to do with capital allowances (which had not yet been invented). Nevertheless, in the absence of a statutory definition of “plant” the case gives us the fundamental starting point in understanding what we mean by that term.
Analysis
This quotation has been approved over and over again, in all courts, in discussions of the meaning of plant for capital allowances purposes. It can be seen as the cornerstone definition and – subject only to statutory provisions that restrict or expand its scope – it is thus of pre-eminent importance in determining what does or does not qualify as plant.
The key concepts to be drawn out of the quotation are the use of the term “apparatus” and the breadth of the definition, encompassing “all goods and chattels, fixed or moveable, live or dead”. In other words, Lindley gave to the word “plant” the widest possible meaning. The term “apparatus” has sometimes been given a narrow interpretation, but “whatever apparatus” clearly indicates that it actually embraces a wide category of assets. That wide interpretation is made explicit in the last part of the quotation, encompassing “all goods and chattels”.
In practice, the concept of “apparatus” is contrasted with the premises or setting. We may therefore think of plant as the apparatus with which the trade is conducted, as opposed to the premises within which it is conducted. This distinction has caused many difficulties in practice, and in later focus articles we will look at the discussions concerning assets as diverse as dry docks, grain silos, school gyms, vast underground storage caverns, and more. But all of these have referred back to this fundamental question of whether the item in question constitutes apparatus.
