References: [1992] 2 EGLR 64
Ratio: A notice to quit the agricultural land had been given in the name of the residuary beneficiary, not in the name of the executors in whom the reversion was still vested.
Held: The notice was invalid. The residuary beneficiary was not the equitable owner, having only the right to see that the estate was duly administered.
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Stodday Land Ltd and Another v Pye ChD (Bailii, [2016] EWHC 2454 (Ch), [2016] WLR(D) 519, WLRD)
The agricultural landlord sold part of his land subject to the respondent’s tenancy to the appellant. Before the transfer was registered, notices to quit were served by both the landlord and his buyer. The tenant challenged both notices in the . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Last Update: 23-Oct-16
Ref: 570352
The post Divall v Harrison; CA 1992 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.