![[2024] UKUT 149 (LC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_lnJS4Uj.png){kind=logo}
Discussion (2): on that basis, were the three buildings occupied together with the arable land at Chequer Tree Farm?
Discussion (2): on that basis, were the three buildings occupied together with the arable land at Chequer Tree Farm?
On the basis of what we have said above, there is no difficulty in finding that the three buildings were occupied together with the arable land at Chequer Tree Farm. They were in the same occupation at the same time; they are contiguous (the fields are just across the yard behind the buildings); they are part of the same business enterprise.
- Heading
- Introduction
- Facts
- More about Fridays’ business
- The law
- The evolution of the law
- The first requirement: are the buildings “occupied together with” agricultural land?
- Discussion (1): is Farmer v Buxted still authoritative as to the meaning of “occupied together with” in paragraph 3(a) of Schedule 5?
- Discussion (2): on that basis, were the three buildings occupied together with the arable land at Chequer Tree Farm?
- Discussion (3):if we are wrong about Buxted, were the three building occupied together with agricultural land?
- The second requirement: are the three buildings used solely in connection with agricultural operations on land?
- Conclusions