- Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 succession tenancies—applying against the wrong landlord (Adams v Jones)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Property analysis: The Upper Tribunal (UT) decided that naming the correct landlord of the holding as respondent to a succession tenancy application under section 39 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 (AHA 1986) was not essential to the validity of such an application. It therefore upheld a decision of the Agricultural Land Tribunal (Wales) permitting the applicant Jones to substitute as respondent, for an incorrectly named party (Adams), the actual landlord (a company, Adams DSB Ltd) after the expiry of the three month time limit for the application. In passing, it also confirmed that in contrast to its English counterpart, appeals from the Welsh tribunal to the UT do not require permission to appeal. Written by Ewan Paton, barrister, at Guildhall Chambers, Bristol.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial