Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.


Drummond v Austin Brown

[1984] BTC 142

Case summary last updated at 21/02/2020 19:13 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case Drummond v Austin Brown

·   Davis v Powell applied.
·   The taxpayer was a solicitor who had a tenancy of his business premises protected by Part II LTA 1954. The landlord served notice to terminate the tenancy. The tenant was entitled to compensation under the Act. 
·   Held, the taxpayer's right to compensation on the termination of the lease was not derived from his lease, but from the 1954 Act and since in creating that right the Act did not require any provision to be written into the lease, it could not be said that the compensation received by the taxpayer was derived from his lease.
·   Fox LJ 
We do not think the sum can be said to be derived from any asset. It was, as Templeman J said in Davis (Inspector of Taxes) v Powell, simply a sum which Parliament said should be paid. 

Drummond v Austin Brown crops up in following areas of law