| 000 | 01246cab a22002415a 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | L141279 | ||
| 008 | 071112e20071012xxk f 000 0 eng d | ||
| 035 | _a(Sirsi) u141279 | ||
| 041 | 0 | _aeng | |
| 100 | 1 | _aBarr, William | |
| 245 | 0 | 0 |
_aUpdate _bagriculture |
| 260 | _c2007 | ||
| 490 |
_aSolicitors' Journal _v151(38) 12 October 2007, 1302-1304(2) |
||
| 520 | _aExamines the implications of the Shirley Trustees v Crabtree judgment upon contested succession applications for agricultural tenancies. Such cases are increasingly rare due to the declining numbers of children following their parents into farming. Details the tests to be met for a successful succession. Argues that this is open to abuse and that the analysis used in this case, which was affected by the Welby v Casswell precedent, did not take full account of real world situations. Some arbitrary results are likely to be produced by this system from time to time. | ||
| 590 | _aKA | ||
| 650 | 2 | 4 | _aAGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACT 1986 |
| 650 | 2 | 4 | _aAGRICULTURAL TENANCIES ACT 1995 |
| 650 | 2 | 4 | _aSHIRLEY TRUSTEES V CRABTREE |
| 650 | 2 | 4 | _aWELBY V CASSWELL |
| 651 | 4 |
_aEngland and Wales _y1543- |
|
| 690 | _aPROPERTY-LANDLORD AND TENANT-AGRICULTURAL TENANCIES | ||
| 942 | _n0 | ||
| 999 |
_c79433 _d79433 |
||