000			02102cab a2200229 4500
001			L130259
008			050711n2005 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u130259
041			_aeng
245			_aWilliam Smith (Wakefield) Ltd v Parisride Ltd
260			_c2005
490			_aEstates Gazette _v[2005] 24 EG 180-186(7)
520			_a[2005] EWHC 462 (Admin), 23 March 2005. Considers whether a counter-notice for tribunal proceedings under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 s26 served concurrently with a notice requiring arbitration was rendered invalid by s28(4) of the Act. Claimant landlord (W) had given defendant tenant (P) notice to quit. P responded with a counter-notice for tribunal proceedings and a notice requiring arbitration without specifying which route he intended to take. W applied to the tribunal contending that the legislation did not allow dual avenues (arbitration and tribunal) to contest the notice to quit. Because P wanted the notice to be arbitrated, the counter-notice was ineffective pursuant to s28(4)(a) of the Act The tribunal refused consent to the operation of the notice to quit and rejected W's request to state a case in the High Court. "Held": application dismissed. The provisions in s28 of the Act could not be construed fairly as rendering a counter-notice invalid merely because the defendant had simultaneously given notice of reference to arbitration. The tribunal was entitled to take into account all the circumstances in determining whether P's failures were such that a fair landlord would not have insisted on possession.
590			_aIKA190705
650			_aWILLIAM SMITH (WAKEFIELD) LTD V PARISRIDE LTD
650			_aAGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACT 1986 S26
650			_aAGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACT 1986 S28(4)
650			_aAGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACT 1986 S28(2)
690			_aPROPERTY-LEASEHOLD PROPERTY-LANDLORD AND TENANT-TENANCIES-AGRICULTURAL TENANCIES-BREACHING AGRICULTURAL TENANCIES
856			_aIuhttp://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2005/462.html _zView the decision free of charge at www.bailii.org...
942			_n0
999			_c75521 _d75521