Click the case name for better results:

Acts

1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts

Lord Newborough v Jones: CA 1974

The landlord, not finding his tenant at home, served a notice to quit by pushing it under the door of a house occupied by the tenant. The tenant claimed that the notice had disappeared below the linoleum, and had not been found for some considerable time, and that therefore he had not been served. Held: … Continue reading Lord Newborough v Jones: CA 1974

Rugby Joint Water Board v Shaw-Fox: HL 1973

The water board obtained a compulsory purchase order to buy agricultural land adjoining a reservoir. The land was subject to protected tenancies under the 1948 Act. Held: (Majority) Because the land subject to notices to treat was required for a use other than agriculture the tenancies were no longer protected. The Point Gourde principle did … Continue reading Rugby Joint Water Board v Shaw-Fox: HL 1973

McGowan and Gibbons v Jewell: CA 28 Feb 2002

The tenant took farm premises subject to a lease allowing its use for farming purposes only. It prevented its use as a market garden, which would have allowed compensation to be claimed on its termination. He had come to operate several activities from the farm. The landlords claimed that the new activities were in breach … Continue reading McGowan and Gibbons v Jewell: CA 28 Feb 2002

Beevor v Mason: 1978

Under the 1948 Act, effect must be given to a notice to quit served after failure to comply with a notice requiring the tenant to pay any rent due within two months of the notice. The evidence showed that the landlord had previously accepted payment of the rent by cheque posted on the date it … Continue reading Beevor v Mason: 1978

Verrall v Farnes: 1966

Consideration for an agreement need not take a monetary form. As to section 2, Cross J said: ‘After all, one of the objects of the Act of 1948, as I understand the matter, was to give security of tenure to those actually farming that land, so that they should not be tempted to take the … Continue reading Verrall v Farnes: 1966

Howkins v Jardine: CA 1951

There was a tenancy from year to year of 7 acres which had on them three cottages, which the tenant in fact sub-let to persons not engaged in agriculture. The tenancy itself contained provisions usual in agricultural tenancies, and the tenant used the land for agriculture. The judge held that the protection afforded to the … Continue reading Howkins v Jardine: CA 1951

Goldsworthy v Brickell: CA 1987

The plaintiff had granted a tenancy of his substantial farm to the first defendant, and made him a partner. The first defendant later bought out the plaintiff who was in turn later reconciled with his only son who had previously had some considerable involvement with the farm. The plaintiff gave a general power to the … Continue reading Goldsworthy v Brickell: CA 1987

Brown v Wilson: 1949

A subtenant’s lease is not protected under the Agricultural Holdings Act where the head lease is terminated by the landlord, but if the head tenant determines his own tenancy the sub-tenancy is protected and will be promoted in his stead: ‘the law will not allow a man, by an act done between him and another, … Continue reading Brown v Wilson: 1949

Crewe Services and Investment Corporation v Silk: CA 2 Dec 1997

The landlord brought proceedings against the tenant for failure to keep his tenanted farm in a good state of repair. The judge awarded the cost of the landlord doing the repairs himself, making no discount for the possibility that the tenant might in fact remedy the breaches before the end of the tenancy. The tenant … Continue reading Crewe Services and Investment Corporation v Silk: CA 2 Dec 1997

Brewster v Strathmore Estates (Holding) Limited: SLC 30 May 2007

SLC Agricultural holdings – whether lease dated october 1949 but with stated duration of 14 years from Martinmas 1946 entered into ‘on or after November 1 1948’ for purposes of section 5 of Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991 – whether statutory provisions or common law applied to maintenance of fixed equipment – retention of rent … Continue reading Brewster v Strathmore Estates (Holding) Limited: SLC 30 May 2007

J S Bloor (Measham) Ltd v Eric Myles Calcott: ChD 23 Nov 2001

The tenant had claimed a tenancy under the Act. The landlord sought to assert a proprietary estoppel against them. There was nothing in the 1986 Act to stop the claimants relying on a proprietary estoppel and asserting their claims to occupation. The defendant’s tenancy was unenforceable against them. Mr Justice Hart Times 12-Dec-2001, Gazette 24-Jan-2002, … Continue reading J S Bloor (Measham) Ltd v Eric Myles Calcott: ChD 23 Nov 2001

Mason v Boscawen: ChD 18 Dec 2008

The landlord had opted to charge VAT on part of the rent. The tenant fell into arrears and now challenged a notice to quit which included the VAT. The court was asked what constituted ‘rent’ for the purposes of a demand for rent founding a notice to quit an agricultural tenancy. Held: The notice had … Continue reading Mason v Boscawen: ChD 18 Dec 2008