Evans and another v Tompkins
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1993) 33 EG 86-87(2)Publication details: 1993Subject(s): Summary: CA 4 February 1993. By a written agreement the plaintiffs, the owners of some grazing land and a barn used in connection with it, allowed the defendants (Y) `to use the grass keep for cattle and some sheep and the use of the barn for keeping cattle and storing hay during winter months`. The agreement was for one year. Y appealed against a HC decision that he should deliver up possession of any land, on the principal ground that the tenancy agreement and surrounding circumstances conferred exclusive occupation on him, therefore he had an agreement protected by the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986. The appeal was dismissed on the grounds that it was for Y to show that the agreement created an agricultural tenancy. By its terms it did not confer exclusivity and other people had permission to graze animals at the same time.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS49187 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 70287-1001 |
CA 4 February 1993. By a written agreement the plaintiffs, the owners of some grazing land and a barn used in connection with it, allowed the defendants (Y) `to use the grass keep for cattle and some sheep and the use of the barn for keeping cattle and storing hay during winter months`. The agreement was for one year. Y appealed against a HC decision that he should deliver up possession of any land, on the principal ground that the tenancy agreement and surrounding circumstances conferred exclusive occupation on him, therefore he had an agreement protected by the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986. The appeal was dismissed on the grounds that it was for Y to show that the agreement created an agricultural tenancy. By its terms it did not confer exclusivity and other people had permission to graze animals at the same time.