Brown v Tiernan
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1993) 18 EG 134-136(3)Publication details: 1993Subject(s): Summary: ChD 10 November 1992. An agreement for use of a paddock for grazing. The defendant (T) claimed the agreement made between the plaintiff (B) and the previous owner of T`s property was for the grazing use only for a period of 10 months, May to March, when the daffodils were not in bloom (within a proviso in s2(3)(a) Agricultural Holdings Act 1986). B did not graze cattle in the paddock between March and May, but he did graze a mare. B contended that the agreement was to graze throughout the year. It was "held" that the agreement was an agricultural tenancy and s2(3)(a) of the Act did not affect the use.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS48739 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 68362-1001 |
ChD 10 November 1992. An agreement for use of a paddock for grazing. The defendant (T) claimed the agreement made between the plaintiff (B) and the previous owner of T`s property was for the grazing use only for a period of 10 months, May to March, when the daffodils were not in bloom (within a proviso in s2(3)(a) Agricultural Holdings Act 1986). B did not graze cattle in the paddock between March and May, but he did graze a mare. B contended that the agreement was to graze throughout the year. It was "held" that the agreement was an agricultural tenancy and s2(3)(a) of the Act did not affect the use.