Ministry of Defence v Spencer and Another: CA 22 May 2003

The parties had varied the agricultural tenancy. A small parcel had been added, and the rent increased to reflect only that additional land. The tenant claimed that, under the Act, this operated to skip the next rent review.
Held: The phrase ‘terms of the tenancy’ was not a term of art, but was to be constrrued with its natural meaning. ‘Any other variation of the terms of the tenancy’ would include an extension of the holding to add land. Appeal dismissed.

Judges:

Lord Justice Auld, Lord Justice Waller and Lord Justice Mantell

Citations:

Times 09-Jun-2003, Gazette 17-Jul-2003

Statutes:

Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 Sch2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromSecretary of State for Defence v Spencer and Another ChD 17-Oct-2002
An agricultural tenancy was varied by the addition of a small plot of land. The tenant argued that this led to a postponement of the review under the Act. The landlord appealed.
Held: The addition of a plot could not properly be seen as a . .

Cited by:

Appealed toSecretary of State for Defence v Spencer and Another ChD 17-Oct-2002
An agricultural tenancy was varied by the addition of a small plot of land. The tenant argued that this led to a postponement of the review under the Act. The landlord appealed.
Held: The addition of a plot could not properly be seen as a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agriculture, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.183390