Image from Google Jackets

Hood and another v National Farmers` Union

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1994) 01 EG 109-115(7)Publication details: 1994Subject(s): Summary: CA 21 April 1993. In September 1983 the plaintiff (H), who had owned a dairy farm in Wiltshire, bought a farm in Oxfordshire which had not been used for dairy purposes for ten years. The milking herd was moved in April 1984 and they received a provisional assessment of primary milk quota calculated on the basis of milk production at the Wiltshire farm but not on the Oxfordshire one. The Dairy Produce Quota Tribunal dismissed their claim for a development claim and an exceptional hardship claim for quota. H claimed that the defendant`s (N) had failed to advise them that they had a right to challenge the tribunal`s decision. N claimed that the judge had misconstrued the 1984 regulations, made finding contrary to the weight of evidence and misinterpreted his role in assessing his loss. Appeal dismissed on grounds that N had been in breach of a duty of care in failing to advise H as the tribunal had been wrong in its conclusions.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS50049 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 73851-1001

CA 21 April 1993. In September 1983 the plaintiff (H), who had owned a dairy farm in Wiltshire, bought a farm in Oxfordshire which had not been used for dairy purposes for ten years. The milking herd was moved in April 1984 and they received a provisional assessment of primary milk quota calculated on the basis of milk production at the Wiltshire farm but not on the Oxfordshire one. The Dairy Produce Quota Tribunal dismissed their claim for a development claim and an exceptional hardship claim for quota. H claimed that the defendant`s (N) had failed to advise them that they had a right to challenge the tribunal`s decision. N claimed that the judge had misconstrued the 1984 regulations, made finding contrary to the weight of evidence and misinterpreted his role in assessing his loss. Appeal dismissed on grounds that N had been in breach of a duty of care in failing to advise H as the tribunal had been wrong in its conclusions.