Savory & Ors v Morrison (t/a Park Home Estates)

A park owner may permit dogs contrary to a park rule only where the rule’s exception for special circumstances applies. A policy allowing incoming residents to bring existing pet dogs, subject to control conditions and non-replacement, concerns ordinary family circumstances and falls outside that exception. The owner has no unfettered discretion to permit dogs. Where special circumstances exist, permission is required. Whether they exist is a matter of judgment, allowing limited legitimate differences of opinion.

Residents of a mobile-home park brought proceedings against the park owner. Their licence agreements required compliance with park rules, including a rule prohibiting dogs as pets except in special circumstances, with written permission from the owner.

The county court found an implied term that the owner would not encourage or authorise an occupier to breach the park rules. It held that the owner’s policy of permitting incoming residents to bring existing pet dogs breached that term, although the residents’ separate claims concerning quiet enjoyment and the park’s condition failed. The owner appealed on the construction of the dog rule and the extent of his discretion to grant permission.

The appeal was dismissed with costs assessed at £5,500.

1. The existence of an implied term that the owner would not encourage or authorise an occupier to breach the park rules was conceded and was not challenged. The issue was whether the owner’s policy authorised breaches of rule 18.
2. Rule 18 prohibited dogs as pets except in special circumstances and required the owner’s written permission. The bracketed example of guide dogs restricted the exception to unusual circumstances involving dogs necessary to the quality of life of incoming occupants. Dogs kept merely for enjoyment, although important to a family, were outside the exception.
3. The owner did not have complete freedom to grant or withhold permission. Properly construed, the rule gave no true discretion: where special circumstances existed, permission was required. The existence of special circumstances remained a matter of judgment, with limited scope for legitimate differences of opinion, and could not be defined exhaustively.
4. Permitting an incoming resident to bring an existing pet dog, on conditions that it be controlled and not replaced when it died, involved ordinary circumstances and was outside rule 18. The policy therefore authorised breaches of the rule and breached the implied term.

Mr Justice Astill gave the first judgment. Lord Justice Dyson agreed and additionally held that the circumstances relied upon were not special and that the bracketed words reinforced that conclusion.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal from the Milton Keynes County Court dismissed, with costs assessed at £5,500.
• Milton Keynes County Court: His Honour Judge Serota QC found that the park owner was in breach of the implied term concerning the park rules. The separate claims based on quiet enjoyment and the park’s condition were rejected.