Burton v Timmis and Another
Burton v Timmis and Another
- 1987
- Estates Gazette 281 (6322) 21 February 1987, 795-798 (3) .
CA 27 November 1986. Appeal from a cc decision holding that an arbitrator`s award should be varied in accordance with Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 Sched 6 para 25A(2) , on the ground of an error of law on the face of the award. The issue arose out of an agreement, recorded in two documents, between the landlord and the tenant of an agricultural holding, fixing the amount of rent at the end of a three-year interval and avoiding the need to continue with a rental arbitration . The agreement included undertakings by the landlord to execute within a stated time certain works to the farmhouse. When the new agreed rent was not paid in response to a notice to pay rent due, the landlord served a notice to quit under Agricultural Holdings (Notices to Quit) Act 1977 s2(3) Case D . On referral to arbitration, the arbitrator decided that the notice to quit was invalid because it was based on a notice to pay rent which incorrectly stated the amount of rent due. The execution of the works stated
PROPERTY-LANDLORD AND TENANT-TENANCIES-AGRICULTURAL TENANCIES
REPAIRS
CA 27 November 1986. Appeal from a cc decision holding that an arbitrator`s award should be varied in accordance with Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 Sched 6 para 25A(2) , on the ground of an error of law on the face of the award. The issue arose out of an agreement, recorded in two documents, between the landlord and the tenant of an agricultural holding, fixing the amount of rent at the end of a three-year interval and avoiding the need to continue with a rental arbitration . The agreement included undertakings by the landlord to execute within a stated time certain works to the farmhouse. When the new agreed rent was not paid in response to a notice to pay rent due, the landlord served a notice to quit under Agricultural Holdings (Notices to Quit) Act 1977 s2(3) Case D . On referral to arbitration, the arbitrator decided that the notice to quit was invalid because it was based on a notice to pay rent which incorrectly stated the amount of rent due. The execution of the works stated
PROPERTY-LANDLORD AND TENANT-TENANCIES-AGRICULTURAL TENANCIES
REPAIRS