Husbandry in UK Law

In ray opinion it is a wrong approach to the problem of construction hero posed to begin with the building. The definition may, of course, be wide enough to include other buildings, such as a broiler house, and if it is, effect must be given to the language, But the clear impression which I receive from the statutory language is that the buildings exempted were to be ancillary or complementary to the agricultural purpose of the land, and not vice vorsa.

Applying that test to this case, I cannot see that any act which the Defendant did is capable of being treated as sufficient to dispossess the plaintiffs. The Defendant never even thought he was dispossessing the Plaintiffs; he never claimed to do more than work the soil, as he thought he was permitted to do.

But for this concession I do not think I should have found it easy to conclude that the packing station in Gainsborough 9 miles or so away was occupied together with the agricultural land in the sense in which those words are used in the definition, and it may be that I would have had difficulty in coming to that conclusion in relation to the 5 layer houses at Norton Brisney some 6 miles away and some of the other buildings.

In its context "occupied together with agricultural land" may connote more than common ownership. My impression on reading the definition of "agricultural buildings" is that it was an attempt by the draftsman to define a farm in statutory language and that it was intended to include buildings used and occupied together with the land for the purpose of farming the land, not buildings far distant and not used in connection with an operation on the land even though owned by the same person.

Looking back from the moment when assurances are repudiated, the nearer the overall outcome comes to the expected reciprocal performance of requested acts in return for the assurance, the stronger will be the case for an award based on or approximating to the expectation interest created by the assurance. That does no more than to recognise party autonomy to decide for themselves what a proportionate reward would be for the contemplated detriment.

I reject the argument that there is no sufficient distinction between the ways in which the two kinds of shoes are treated to enable one to say that storing the one kind is one part of the trade and storing the other kind is another part.