Agricultural holdings

Citation

(1998), "Agricultural holdings", Property Management, Vol. 16 No. 1. https://doi.org/10.1108/pm.1998.11316aab.024

Agricultural holdings

Agricultural holdings

National Trust v. Knipe [1997] 40 EG 151

In this case, the property in question comprised a farm of some 350 acres, together with a farmhouse and other buildings including a cottage, the whole being let together on an annual tenancy. The tenants were father and son, and their family had farmed the land "for very many years". One occupied the farmhouse, and the other occupied the cottage.

In 1994 the landlord served notice on the defendants under the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 in respect of arrears of rent; subsequently, since the notice had apparently not been complied with, the landlord serviced notice to quit. The tenants alleged that the notice to quit, although it complied with the requirements of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986, was nonetheless invalid because it failed also to comply with the requirements of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 which lays down certain prescribed requirements in respect of any notice "to quit any premises let... as a dwelling house". The tenancy of the farm included two dwelling houses, said the tenants, therefore any valid notice to quit had to include all the information prescribed by Parliament under the 1977 Act.

The Court of Appeal, after a fairly comprehensive review of both the legislation itself and of the relevant legal authorities, came to the conclusion that the information required to be included in a notice to quit premises let as a dwelling house was inappropriate for inclusion in a notice to quit an agricultural holding, and that this had not been Parliament's intention: the two legislative codes were different; the prescribed periods of notice were different; the steps to be taken by the tenant in defence of his tenancy were different. In conclusion, although the property comprised in the tenancy did include more than one dwelling house, these were let as part of an agricultural holding, rather than being let as "dwelling houses" for the purposes of the 1977 Act, which accordingly did not apply.

As to whether the carrying out of arable farming activities by a partnership acting in effect as the agent of the tenant company amounted to the latter "sharing or parting with possession" contrary to the terms of the tenancy see: Wallace v. C Brian Barratt and Son Ltd [1997] 31 EG 97, where the court held that in this case they did not do so.

For an example of a case in which the court upheld an agreement under s. 5 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 excluding the security of tenure provisions set out in s. 3 of the 1986 Act, see: Jones v. Owen [1997] 32 EG 85.