| 000 | 01097cab a2200301 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | ABS46163 | ||
| 008 | 090401t1992 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d | ||
| 035 | _a(Sirsi) u57028 | ||
| 041 | _aeng | ||
| 100 | _aEllis, I. | ||
| 245 | _aRating of agricultural land and buildings | ||
| 260 | _c1992 | ||
| 350 | _a0 | ||
| 490 |
_aIRRV Journal _vMarch 1992, 56-57(2) |
||
| 520 | _aExamines CA decisions on the Buxted cases notable for the significant comments on the de minimis principle: "Farmer (VO) and another v Buxted Poultry Ltd" (ABS45656) and "Handley (VO) v Bernard Matthews plc" (ABS40183). Refers to earlier caselaw. | ||
| 650 | _aBUXTED CASES | ||
| 650 | _aDE MINIMIS PRINCIPLE | ||
| 650 | _aEASTWOOD V HERROD | ||
| 650 | _aFARMER (VO) AND OTHERS V BUXTED POULTRY LTD | ||
| 650 | _aHANDLEY V BERNARD MATTHEWS PLC | ||
| 650 | _aHILLESHOG SUGARBEET BREEDING CO LTD V WILKES | ||
| 650 | _aLOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE ACT 1988 SCHED 5 PARA 5(1) | ||
| 650 | _aRATING APPEALS | ||
| 690 | _aRATING AND VALUATION | ||
| 690 | _aRURAL PRACTICE | ||
| 942 | _n0 | ||
| 948 | _c04/03/1997 | ||
| 999 |
_c34774 _d34774 |
||