Brown v Tiernan
Brown v Tiernan
- 1993
- Estates Gazette (1993) 18 EG 134-136(3) .
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.
AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACT 1986 S2(3)(A)
AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACT 1986
PROPERTY-LANDLORD AND TENANT-TENANCIES-AGRICULTURAL TENANCIES
DAFFODILS
GRAZING AGREEMENTS
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.
AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACT 1986 S2(3)(A)
AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACT 1986
PROPERTY-LANDLORD AND TENANT-TENANCIES-AGRICULTURAL TENANCIES
DAFFODILS
GRAZING AGREEMENTS