Judgements - Barrett and Others v. Morgan
Series: Estates Gazette ; (2000) 06 EG 165-169(5)Publication details: 2000Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: House of Lords, 27 January 2000. In 1970 the fourth Earl of Eldon granted a yearly tenancy of 900 acres of agricultural land to himself and his two sons. After the death of the fourth Earl in 1976, the succession to the earldom by the elder son and numerous transactions for or on behalf of the younger son S, parts of the freehold became vested in the appellants. The appellants were either related to the two remaining tenants, the fifth earl and S, or were family trustees holding land for the benefit of relatives. The respondent farmed the land in what was later determined to be a subtenancy. In 1992 the appellants served notice to quit on the two remaining tenants. The tenants did not serve any counternotice claiming the protection of the Agricultural Holding Act 1986. The appellants brought proceedings against the respondent claiming possession of the land. Appeal allowed.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS61966 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 104340-1001 |
House of Lords, 27 January 2000. In 1970 the fourth Earl of Eldon granted a yearly tenancy of 900 acres of agricultural land to himself and his two sons. After the death of the fourth Earl in 1976, the succession to the earldom by the elder son and numerous transactions for or on behalf of the younger son S, parts of the freehold became vested in the appellants. The appellants were either related to the two remaining tenants, the fifth earl and S, or were family trustees holding land for the benefit of relatives. The respondent farmed the land in what was later determined to be a subtenancy. In 1992 the appellants served notice to quit on the two remaining tenants. The tenants did not serve any counternotice claiming the protection of the Agricultural Holding Act 1986. The appellants brought proceedings against the respondent claiming possession of the land. Appeal allowed.