The farmer complained that the department had, during the foot and mouth outbreak destroyed animals which did not belong to the owner of the land. The department said that the farmer had disposed of his land at an undervalue to defeat his creditors.
Held: The department did not have power under the Act to bury slaughtered animals on land which was not occupied by their owner, and the counterclaim succeeded. However the defendant had displayed a readiness to dissemble in order to get his bank which had taken possession of the farm to resell it to the lady who was soon to be his wife without disclosing his relationship. The legislation was operative against someone who took part in a transaction at an undervalue. Mr Feakins knew that she would immediately resell the land for twice the amount once purchased when he, by arrangement, had already agreed to surrender his agricultural tenancy. Accordingly the transaction could be set aside.
Judges:
Hart J
Citations:
Times 29-Dec-2004
Statutes:
Insolvency Act 1985 423, Animal Health Act 1981 34
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Regina on the Application of Feakins v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs CA 4-Nov-2003
The applicant farmer had substantial volumes of potentially contaminated carcasses on his land. The respondent derogated from the European regulations which would have arranged for the disposal of the carcasses. The respondent challenged the . .
Cited – Re Brabon 2001
The debtor had contracted to sell his land to a third party developer, Silver. Between contract and completion, the debtor was made bankrupt. His wife, who already held legal charges over part of the land, took a transfer of a charge over the . .
See Also – Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs v Feakins and Another ChD 26-Nov-2004
. .
Cited by:
See Also – Regina on the Application of Feakins v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs CA 4-Nov-2003
The applicant farmer had substantial volumes of potentially contaminated carcasses on his land. The respondent derogated from the European regulations which would have arranged for the disposal of the carcasses. The respondent challenged the . .
Appeal from – Feakins and Another v Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Civ 1513) CA 9-Dec-2005
The department complained that the defendants had entered into a transaction with their farm at an undervalue so as to defeat its claim for recovery of sums due. The transaction used the grant of a tenancy by the first chargee.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract, Torts – Other, Agriculture
Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.220647