000			01643cab a2200229 4500
001			ABS51278
008			090401t1994 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u19291
041			_aeng
245			_aWelby and another v Casswell
260			_c1994
350			_a0
490			_aEstates Gazette _v(1994) 35 EG 126-130(5)
520			_aQBD 8 March 1994. In September 1988 X`s father, who had an agricultural tenancy, died. The holding had been farmed by X and his father in partnership. In four of the years before his fathers death X`s drawings from the partnership were attributable not to profits but to injections of capital. In only three out of the last seven years did X draw sums exceeding 50% of the farming net profits to which he was entitled. The ALT made a direction entitling him to the tenancy on the grounds that during the relevant period X was engaged in agricultural work on the holding and his principal source of livelihood were his drawings on the business.The landlords appealed on the grounds that he failed the test that the farm was his principal source of livelihood. Appeal allowed on the grounds that money which goes into a farming account from sources other than agricultural work and which is then withdrawn will not be a `source of livelihood...derived from agricultural work on the holding`.
650			_aAGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACT 1986 S39
650			_aPROPERTY-LANDLORD AND TENANT-TENANCIES-AGRICULTURAL TENANCIES
650			_aPRINCIPAL SOURCE OF LIVELIHOOD
650			_aSUCCESSION
690			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT-CASE LAW-AGRICULTURAL TENANCIES
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c12864 _d12864