Respondent claiming agricultural tenancy — Evidence adduced equally compelling on both sides — Judge at first instance failing to adequately explain reasons for preferring respondent’s evidence
The appellant sought possession of land that it owned at Blackleach Farm, Lancashire, which had been used by the respondent for a substantial period of time. It was common ground that the respondent annually cut the grass on the land for fodder, a quantity of which was provided to the appellant, and that the respondent paid rent to the appellant. The respondent maintained that, in addition to the mowing, he used the land to graze sheep and cattle. He argued that this amounted to a farming operation, entitling him to an agricultural tenancy under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986. The appellant refuted the assertion that animals were grazed on the land, and contended that, since the respondent had the benefit only of an oral mowing agreement, and the rent was not for the use of the land but for the use of the appellant’s barn, the respondent fell within the exception afforded by section 2(3)(a) of the 1986 Act.
Both parties adduced considerable oral and written evidence at a two-day hearing, and, in a brief judgment, the recorder found for the respondent. The judgment was appealed on the ground that the recorder’s failure to identify the reasons why he preferred the respondent’s case amounted to a procedural irregularity.
Held: The appeal was allowed.
The matter was to be sent back for retrial. Considerable evidence had been given at the original hearing, and the judge had indicated that he considered all the witnesses to possess integrity and honesty. However, the fundamental conflict of evidence and the complex interlocking of fact and law required careful analysis; in particular, the judge should have addressed the issue of whether the respondent enjoyed exclusive possession of the land.
In setting out the reasons for his decision, the judge should have been guided by the principles established by English v Emery Reimbold & Strick Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 605; [2002] 3 All ER 385. His failure to explain his reasoning or the method by which he reached his decision meant that the Court of Appeal was unable to analyse that decision and reach its own conclusion on the facts.
Sara Hargreaves (instructed by Harworth & Nuttall, of Blackburn) appeared for the appellant; Nigel Clayton (instructed by Watsons, of Darwen) appeared for the respondent.
Vivienne Lane, barrister
