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 variation of the boundaries, but the description of the land in the tenancy could properly be seen as one of its terms, and a small variation of the terms did not call into effect paragraph 4(1).
Judges:
Neuberger J
Citations:
Times 30-Oct-2002, Gazette 14-Nov-2002, [2002] EWHC 2116 (CH), [2003] 1 WLR 75
Statutes:
Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 Sch2 Para 4(1) 6
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appealed to – 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 . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Agriculture, Land
Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.177840