Law reports

Landlord and tenantAgricultural tenancy - landlord asserting proprietary estoppel - defendant's tenancy unenforceable against landlordJ S Bloor (Measham) Ltd v Calcott: ChD (Mr Justice Hart):23 November 2001The claimant company bought agricultural land to develop.

After the purchase it emerged that the defendant enjoyed the benefit of a tenancy under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986.

He brought proceedings against the claimant in the county court seeking damages for trespass and an injunction preventing the claimant coming on to the land.

The judge ordered the claimant to pay damages in respect of a trespass in July 1997 but refused the injunction on the basis that the defendant had, by his conduct, disentitled himself from obtaining equitable relief.

The claimant then made a claim in the High Court for a declaration that it was entitled to occupy and develop the land and that the defendant's tenancy was unenforceable against it on the grounds that his conduct had, under the doctrine of proprietary estoppel, given rise to an equity in the claimant's favour.

Keith Rowley QC (instructed by Needham & James, Birmingham) for the claimant.

Sam Aaron (instructed by M & S Solicitors Ltd, Leicester) for the defendant.Held, finding for the claimant, that although there was a principle of public policy which struck down any agreement to contract out of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986, that principle did not necessarily apply to voluntary acts of a tenant already in possession with the full force of the Act; that the tenant's ability to determine the tenancy by consensual surrender must include the ability, by acts falling short of surrender, to create an equity in favour of the landlord; and that there was nothing in the 1986 Act which prevented the claimant from asserting its claims to occupation and the defendant's tenancy was therefore unenforceable against him.Road trafficPublic service vehicle operator - authorised officer's power to inspect and copy tachograph charts - entitlement to remove them from premisesCantabrica Coach Holdings Ltd v Vehicle Inspectorate: HL (Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton and Lord Scott of Foscote): 22 November 2001The defendant was a public service vehicle operator to which part VI of the Transport Act 1968 applied.

An authorised officer of the Vehicle Inspectorate visited its premises and required permission to remove tachograph charts for inspection at his own office.Permission was refused, and the defendant was charged with an offence contrary to section 99(1)(bb) and (4)(a) of the Act (as amended by regulation 3 of the Passenger and Goods Vehicles (Recording Equipment) Regulations 1979 (SI 1979/1746) and the Community Drivers' Hours and Recording Equipment Regulations 1986 (SI 1986/1457).

The justices convicted and the Queen's Bench Divisional Court dismissed an appeal by the defendant, who appealed.David Phillips QC and Richard Serlin (instructed by Wedlake Saint, St Albans) for the defendant.

Richard Plender QC and Christopher Hallsworth (solicitor-advocate) (instructed by Foinette Quinn, Milton Keynes) for the Vehicle Inspectorate.Held, dismissing the appeal, that if, because of the number or character of the documents that an authorised officer wished to inspect and copy, proper inspection and copying could only be done with equipment not immediately available at the operator's premises, he had to be allowed to remove them for the purpose for such period as was reasonably required.

(WLR)TAXATIONCapital allowances - finance agreement for funding car hire business - 'expensive car' restrictions applicable to relevant instalment paymentsLloyds UDT Finance Ltd v Chartered Finance Trust Holdings plc and others: Ch D (Sir Andrew Morritt V-C): 22 November 2001'A' Ltd carried on a car hire business, entering a financing agreement to provide loan facilities to purchase vehicles for its hire operations.

Rental payments under the agreement were calculated on the basis of a loan of the purchase price for a vehicle with interest repayable by instalments over the term of the agreement.

In 1998 'A' Ltd was sold by the part 20 defendant to the defendants who then sold on to the claimant, tax warranties being given as terms of the sales.

The defendants and the part 20 defendant contended that 'A' Ltd's profits were to be calculated on the basis that the 'expensive car' provisions in section 35(2) of the Capital Allowances Act 1990 did not apply to restrict the availability of relief.

The claimant sought a declaration that 'A' Ltd's profits were subject to the restriction.Michael Briggs QC and Giles Goodfellow (instructed by CMS Cameron McKenna) for the claimant.

Nicholas Strauss QC and Neil Kitchener (instructed by Slaughter and May) for the defendants.

John Walters QC (instructed by Eversheds) for the part 20 defendant.

David Ewart for the Inland Revenue.Held, granting the declaration, that section 35(2) of the 1990 Act restricted the extent to which 'any expenditure on the hiring of a motor car, the retail price of which when new exceeded 12,000' could be deducted in computing trading profits; that 'hiring' meant obtaining from another the use of a chattel for a stipulated payment; and, that it followed that 'A' Ltd's taxable profits had to be computed on the basis that the section 35(2) restriction applied to all the rental payments made pursuant to the finance agreement relating to vehicles having a retail price exceeding 12,000.