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, [2001] EWHC Ch 467, CH1997 J No: 5742
Bailii
Agricultural Holdings Act 1986
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Johnson v Moreton HL 1980
The tenant had, in the tenancy agreement itself, purported to contract ‘not in any event to serve a counter-notice under Section 24(1)’ of the 1948 Act.
Held: A head tenant under an agricultural tenancy has the right to challenge any notice to . .
Cited – Keen v Holland CA 1984
Oliver LJ rejected a submission that, where parties were shown to have a common view about the legal effect of a contract into which they had entered and it was established that one of them would not, to the other’s knowledge, have entered into it . .
Cited – Solle v Butcher CA 1949
Fundamental Mistake Needed to Allow Rescission
The court set out the circumstances in which the equitable remedy of rescission of a contract is available for mutual mistake. The mistake has to be as to some fundamental element of the contract. What is ‘fundamental’ is a wider category of event . .
Cited – Lawrence and Another v Lexcore Holdings Ltd 1978
Effect of a mistake in a document. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Agriculture, Landlord and Tenant, Estoppel, Damages
Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.166919