References: [1988] 3 All ER 760, [1989] QB 390, [1988] 3 WLR 921
Coram: Ralph Gibson LJ
Ratio: The land-owner held an agricultural holding. He wanted to let it but, in doing so, to deprive the tenant of the benefit of the statutory regime giving security of tenure. So he let the property to his wife, and his wife granted a sub-tenancy to the defendant. The freeholder subsequently died and his personal representatives wanted to recover possession. They served notice to quit on the wife determining her tenancy. She refrained from serving any counternotice, nor did he serve any notice to quit on the sub-tenant. The personal representatives, after the expiry of the notice to quit, claimed possession from the sub-tenant.
Held: The tenancy to the wife was a sham, a pretence without any reality. They held that the sub-tenant was in reality a tenant holding directly from the landlord to whom he had, for years, been paying his rent. No notice to quit had been served on the sub-tenant, so his agricultural tenancy continued. The notice to quit served on the wife was so much waste of paper.
(Ralph Gibson LJ, dissenting) The tenancy granted to the wife was not a sham, but was a reality, and should be treated on that footing.
Statutes: Agricultural Holdings Act 1986
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Belvedere Court Management Ltd v Frogmore Developments Ltd CA ([1996] 1 All ER 312, [1997] QB 858)
Landlords had sold flats to Frogmore without serving a section 5 notice under the 1987 Act. Prior to receipt of a purchase notice, Frogmore granted certain leases in the block of flats to another party.
Held: The agreements were upheld, and . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Last Update: 24-Jul-17
Ref: 245014
The post Gisborne v Burton: CA 1988 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.