Image from Google Jackets

Mann v Gardner and another

Language: English Series: Property and Compensation Reports ; (1991) 61 PCR 1-10(6)Publication details: 1991Subject(s): Summary: CA 14 June 1990. An agricultural tenancy agreement was created in 1970 between landlord M`s predecessor in title and tenant G. In 1983 G became a joint tenant and a new rent was fixed. In 1985 it was agreed that G would surrender possession of a cottage which had previously been occupied by an employee of G. For this the rent would be reduced. In October 1986 G served notice demanding arbitration to determine the rent under Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 s12 . M served a similar notice. In October 1987 two further parcels of land were added to the holding and the rent was increased. An arbitrator was appointed in November 1987 with G contending that the rent should be reduced and M that it should be increased. However before the hearing M`s solicitors objected to the proceedings so it became a special hearing at County Court, which held in favour of G with the case being remitted to the arbitrator. M appealed to CA. The point arising was whether there was a previous rise or fall in r
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS44122 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 45436-1001

CA 14 June 1990. An agricultural tenancy agreement was created in 1970 between landlord M`s predecessor in title and tenant G. In 1983 G became a joint tenant and a new rent was fixed. In 1985 it was agreed that G would surrender possession of a cottage which had previously been occupied by an employee of G. For this the rent would be reduced. In October 1986 G served notice demanding arbitration to determine the rent under Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 s12 . M served a similar notice. In October 1987 two further parcels of land were added to the holding and the rent was increased. An arbitrator was appointed in November 1987 with G contending that the rent should be reduced and M that it should be increased. However before the hearing M`s solicitors objected to the proceedings so it became a special hearing at County Court, which held in favour of G with the case being remitted to the arbitrator. M appealed to CA. The point arising was whether there was a previous rise or fall in r