Short v Greeves
Short v Greeves
- 1988
- Estates Gazette (8808) 27 February 1988, 109-112(3) .
CA 12 November 1987. Appeal by landlord (G) against cc decision in favour of tenant (S) holding that S was the tenant of an agricultural holding . The tenancy related to a garden centre and began in 1982. Between 1982 and 1985 an increasing number of articles were brought on to the land from elsewhere for sale, such as garden seats, garden sheds and paving. G gave S a notice under the Landlord and Tenant Act s25 purporting to terminate the tenancy and stated that an application for the grant of a new tenancy would not be opposed. S then applied for a new tenancy without prejudice to his contention that the land was an agricultural holding. At issue was whether the tenancy, at the relevant dates, was substantially an agricultural holding (subject to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 or 1986) or a business tenancy (subject to Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954). Also at issue was whether substantiality should be determined by proportion of turnover . Cc found that bought-in p
AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACT 1986
DIVERSIFICATION
HOWKINS V JARDINE
CA 12 November 1987. Appeal by landlord (G) against cc decision in favour of tenant (S) holding that S was the tenant of an agricultural holding . The tenancy related to a garden centre and began in 1982. Between 1982 and 1985 an increasing number of articles were brought on to the land from elsewhere for sale, such as garden seats, garden sheds and paving. G gave S a notice under the Landlord and Tenant Act s25 purporting to terminate the tenancy and stated that an application for the grant of a new tenancy would not be opposed. S then applied for a new tenancy without prejudice to his contention that the land was an agricultural holding. At issue was whether the tenancy, at the relevant dates, was substantially an agricultural holding (subject to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 or 1986) or a business tenancy (subject to Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954). Also at issue was whether substantiality should be determined by proportion of turnover . Cc found that bought-in p
AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACT 1986
DIVERSIFICATION
HOWKINS V JARDINE