Image from Google Jackets

R v Agricultural Dwelling-House Advisory Committee for Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Northamptonshire, ex parte Brough

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; 282(6339) 20 June 1987, 1542-1546(3)Publication details: 1987Subject(s): Summary: QBD 19 November 1986. Application for judicial review, challenging the proceedings of an agricultural dwelling-house committee established under Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 s29 , which turned down an application for vacant possession of a cottage occupied by the respondent. The applicant was the owner of forestry land and the respondent had been in his employ as a forester and occupied a cottage in that capacity. He had been (unfairly) dismissed and given notice to quit , becoming a statutory tenant under the 1976 Act. The applicant had sought possession of the cottage for his replacement. However, there were irregularities during the proceedings, each party being heard in the absence of the other and the respondent had made allegations of bad faith against the applicant which the latter had no opportunity to refute. In addition, the Committee`s report failed to state adequately why they rejected the application, although required to give reasons under s28(6) of the 1976 Act. Held, a
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS37843 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 7085-1001

QBD 19 November 1986. Application for judicial review, challenging the proceedings of an agricultural dwelling-house committee established under Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 s29 , which turned down an application for vacant possession of a cottage occupied by the respondent. The applicant was the owner of forestry land and the respondent had been in his employ as a forester and occupied a cottage in that capacity. He had been (unfairly) dismissed and given notice to quit , becoming a statutory tenant under the 1976 Act. The applicant had sought possession of the cottage for his replacement. However, there were irregularities during the proceedings, each party being heard in the absence of the other and the respondent had made allegations of bad faith against the applicant which the latter had no opportunity to refute. In addition, the Committee`s report failed to state adequately why they rejected the application, although required to give reasons under s28(6) of the 1976 Act. Held, a