Queen’s Bench Division

Published July 30, 2007

Shirley and Others v Crabtree

Before Mr Justice Beatson

Judgment June 27, 2007

On an application by a nominated successor for a direction that she became the tenant of an agricultural holding, she did not have to satisfy the livelihood condition by reference to five of the seven years ending with the date of the tribunal hearing as well as by reference to the date of the retirement notice.

Mr Justice Beatson so held when dismissing an appeal, by way of case stated, by Andrew Shirley, Tamara Shirley, Jason Bowerman and Countess Ferrers, as trustees of the Shirley Children’s Settlement and landlords of Shirley Hall Farm, against the decision of the Agricultural Land Tribunal dated September 15, 2006, making a direction entitling the respondent, Ruth Crabtree, to a tenancy of the holding of Shirley Farm on the retirement of John Foster, the current tenant.

By a tenancy agreement, Shirley Farm was let to Mr Foster who, with his daughter had been in a farming partnership since April 5, 1997. On March 21, 2004, Mr Foster gave a retirement notice under section 49(1) of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986, stating that he intended to retire and nominating the respondent to succeed him.

She applied for a direction entitling her to the tenancy. The landlords opposed her application. The tribunal heard the case on July 24, 2006.

Mr Martin Rodger, QC, for the landlords; Miss Caroline Hutton for the respondent.

MR JUSTICE BEATSON said that section 50(2)(a) of the 1986 Act was referred to as the livelihood condition. That required that the applicant’s agricultural work on the holding be his or her principal source of livelihood during five of the previous seven years.

The landlords submitted that the livelihood condition had to be satisfied both when notice of retirement was given and at the hearing before the tribunal.

The respondent submitted that neither the wording of section 50 nor the policy underlying the 1986 Act required section 50(2)(a) to be interpreted as requiring the livelihood criterion of eligibility to be proved by showing eligibility over a rolling period of seven years changing daily until the date of the hearing.

His Lordship said that issue had not been considered by the court and there was a division of opinion in the textbooks.

The tribunal did not fall into error in concluding that the livelihood condition must have been satisfied in respect of the period ending with the retirement notice, and that once established, that qualification could not be lost. The subsection was to be construed in a purposive manner.

The subsection could have been clearer, but in the context of the eligibility conditions in the 1986 Act and its predecessors, the ordinary and natural meaning of “in the last seven years” was the period expiring at the date of the retirement notice.

Solicitors: Mills & Reeve, Norwich; Nigel Davis, Belper.

Times Recommends

• Legal school 'earned £1m by exploiting bar course'
• Axe may fall on 5,000 more City lawyers
• Prince Charles named in £81m court battle