Davis v Powell

·   A tenant farmer’s tenancy was surrendered in consequence of a notice to quit served by the landlord. The landlord paid to the tenant £591 by way of compensation for disturbance under s 34(1) of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948. The Crown contended that the £591 was a capital sum derived from an asset, viz the lease.

·   Lord Templeman

·   Compensation for disturbance paid under s 34 was not 'derived' from an asset, but was simply a sum which, by statute, had to be paid for expense and loss unavoidably incurred once the tenancy had been terminated.