Divall v Harrison and another
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1992) 38 EG 149-152(2)Publication details: 1992Subject(s): Summary: CA 21 February 1992. Letters were issued by the executors of a landlord`s will to terminate H`s annual tenancy. D, the plaintiff, was the residual beneficiary of that will, on whose behalf the notices were served in accordance with the specified time limit. However, H served a counter notice under the terms of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986. In court at the first instance, the notices to quit were accepted as valid, so the tenant appealed arguing that the plaintiff was not at that stage the landlord. This was accepted at the Court of Appeal, the landlord not having been correctly identified in the notice.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS47265 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 61298-1001 |
CA 21 February 1992. Letters were issued by the executors of a landlord`s will to terminate H`s annual tenancy. D, the plaintiff, was the residual beneficiary of that will, on whose behalf the notices were served in accordance with the specified time limit. However, H served a counter notice under the terms of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986. In court at the first instance, the notices to quit were accepted as valid, so the tenant appealed arguing that the plaintiff was not at that stage the landlord. This was accepted at the Court of Appeal, the landlord not having been correctly identified in the notice.