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 of the tenancy agreement.
Held: The tenancy, not the 1948 Act, defined the uses permitted by the lease. The proposed activities of a farm shop and educational visits were not agricultural purposes within the meaning of the tenancy agreement.


Lord Justice Mance, And, Mr. Justice Park


Gazette 14-Mar-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 145




Agricultural Holdings Act 1948, Agricultural Holdings Act 1986


England and Wales


CitedHowkins 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agriculture, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167734