swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Agriculture - From: 1930 To: 1959
This page lists 7 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
Gallagher v Lynn; PC 1936 - [1937] AC 863
Brown v Wilson [1950] EG 45; (1949) 208 LT 144
1949
Hilbery J
Landlord and Tenant, Agriculture
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, to impair or destroy the rights which he has granted to a third party."
Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 - Law of Property Act 1925 139
1 Cites
1 Citers
Howkins v Jardine [1951] 1 KB 614
1951
CA
Somervell LJ, Jenkins LJ, Hodson J
Landlord and Tenant, Agriculture
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 tenant by the Act in invalidating a notice to quit was limited to land used for agriculture and did not extend to the cottages. Held: Either the whole of the property demised was subject to the protection of the Act or no part. It took as the test of whether or not the Act applied, whether or not the tenancy was in substance an agricultural tenancy
Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 1
1 Citers
Fisheries Case; United Kingdom v Norway
18 Dec 1951
ICJ
International, Agriculture
[ ICJ ]
Regina v Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, Ex parte Graham [1955] 2 QB 140
1955
CA
Agriculture, Company
On a true construction of section 104(5) of the Agriculture Act 1947 a sub-committee or a district committee of a county agricultural executive committee is not excluded from being "a person" who may be appointed by the Minister to hear representations, notwithstanding that it was a fluctuating body of natural persons.
Agriculture Act 1947 104(5)
1 Citers
Hood Barrs v Inland Revenue (No 2) [1957] UKHL TC_37_188
14 Mar 1957
HL
Income Tax, Agriculture
Income Tax, Schedule D - Deduction - Expenses - Timber merchant - Payments for right to fell and take standing timber.
[ Bailii ]
Fawcett Properties Ltd v Buckingham County Council [1959] 2 AII ER 321
1959
CA
Lord Evershed MR
Planning, Agriculture
The landowner made an attempt to strike down as ultra vires a condition attached to a planning permission. The condition related to an agricultural use condition where the occupant was not substantially dependent upon income from what was described as a hobby farm. Held: The condition was valid because the appellant had not shown that it was unreasonable, that it was unrelated to or inconsistent with the policy underlying the relevant planning proposals, or that irrelevant considerations had been taken into account.
Lord Evershed MR said: "I take first the more broad and general attack by counsel for the company on the validity of the condition, viz., that in spite of the generality of the language of s. 14 (1) of the Act, "such conditions as they think fit", it is not open to the local planning authority to impose a condition in reference to a proposed structure related not to the manner in which the building may be used (e.g., as a residence, or as a shop, etc.) but to the class of persons who may use or occupy it. On this point I am content to adopt the conclusion and reasoning of ROXBURGH, J., who stated that acceptance of such an argument would involve reading some gloss or qualification into the language chosen by Parliament and that he could find no sufficient justification for doing so."
. . And "To my mind the most difficult question is whether, when regard is had, on the one hand, to the planning scheme and proposals of the council, and the reasons given by the council for the imposition of the condition in December, 1952, and, on the other hand, to the scope and effect of the condition itself according to a fair interpretation of the language, the latter ought to be treated as having been beyond the council's powers, not being fairly and reasonably related to the former. In formulating the question, I have, as a matter of language, substituted (by reference) the words "the planning scheme and proposals of the council" for the words used by ROXBURGH, J., "the local planning requirements". Both forms of words depart somewhat from the language of LORD DENNING in Pyx Granite Co., Ltd. v. Ministry of Housing and Local Government (1) ([1958] 1 All E.R. 625), where he spoke (ibid., at p. 633) of the requirement that the conditions should "fairly and reasonably relate to the permitted development"."
1 Citers
