Going back to an old English case today, in which a horse is deemed to be “plant”. For non-native speakers, this usually means “machinery used in an industrial or manufacturing process” 🙂 …

The plaintiff was employed by the defendant to drive carts. He objected that the horse had a vicious nature, but was obliged to drive it in any event. The horse kicked him.

Held: For the purposes of the 1880 Act, the plaintiff was an employee, the horse was plant in the employer’s business and its character was a defect in that plant. 🙂 ‘Plant’ includes whatever apparatus or instruments are used by a business man in carrying on his business.

Yarmouth v France (1887) 19 QBD 647

More recently…

An English stately home, Castle Howard, has been wrangling with the British tax authorities (HMRC) about a famous painting by the artist Sir Joshua Reynolds, entitled “Omai“, which it claimed was plant and therefore exempt from capital gains tax.

Find out more here…