Thomson v Church Commissioners for England and another

Landlord and tenant — Agricultural tenancy — Succession — Agricultural tribunal finding claimant not eligible for tenancy — Tribunal refusing to state case for court — Whether error of law justifying court to direct case stated — Whether claimant eligible for succession tenancy — Application dismissed In 1957, the first defendant granted a tenancy of a farm to the claimant’s grandfather. In 1995, her brother was granted a yearly tenancy in succession to their grandfather. When the brother died in 2004, the claimant wished to apply for a second succession tenancy. The statutory right to succeed to an agricultural tenancy was conferred by the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986. In order for the claimant to succeed to the tenancy, she had to show either that she was an “eligible person” within section 36 of the 1986 Act or that she should be treated as being an eligible person pursuant to section 41. The agricultural land tribunal (ALT) found that the claimant did not fulfil the requirements of section 36. However, she sought to show, under section 41(1)(b), that, in her case, the condition specified in section 36(3)(a), although not entirely satisfied was satisfied to a material extent. If that condition was satisfied, and the ALT went on to find that it would be fair and reasonable for the claimant to apply for a successor tenancy, it had to direct that she was to be treated as though she were an eligible person. The tribunal then had to decide whether the claimant was a “suitable person” to whom a tenancy should be granted within section 39 of the 1986 Act. The ALT decided that the claimant did not satisfy the condition in section 41(1)(b) and dismissed her application for a successor tenancy. The claimant wished to challenge that decision and requested the ALT to make a reference to the High Court under section 6(1) of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1954. The tribunal refused to do so and the claimant, as a person aggrieved, applied to the court, under section 6(2) of the 1954 Act, for an order directing the tribunal to state a case. The critical question was whether the condition in section 36(3)(a) of the 1986 Act, that for five of the previous seven years, the claimant’s only or principal source of income had been derived from agricultural work on the holding was satisfied “to a material extent”. Held: The application was dismissed. The ALT had not made an error of law such as would justify the court directing it to state a case. Although the ALT considered that the claimant would have been a suitable person to be granted a succession tenancy, it had been entitled to find that she had not satisfied the mandatory conditions for such tenancies since she did not satisfy the eligibility criteria under the 1986 Act: Clegg v Fraser [1982] 2 EGLR 7; (1982) 264 EG 144; William Smith (Wakefield) Ltd v Parisride Ltd [2005] 2 EGLR 22; [2005] 24 EG 180 referred to. The question of whether the livelihood condition had been satisfied to a “material extent” within section 36 was a matter of fact for the tribunal, although those words had to be given a wide meaning. In the present case, the ALT had given lengthy and careful consideration to the evidence, but had concluded that the discrepancy between percentages of the claimant’s livelihood attributable to the farm and to other sources was too large to satisfy the requirements of section 36(3)(a): Littlewood v Rolfe [1980] 1 EGLR 7; (1980) 258 EG 168 and Wilson v Earl Spencer’s Settlement Trustees [1985] EGLR 3 considered. Emily Windsor (instructed by Ward Hadaway, of Newcastle) appeared for the claimant; Paul Harris (instructed by the legal department of Defra) appeared for the second defendant, the Agricultural Land Tribunal; the first defendants did not appear and were not represented. Eileen O’Grady, barrister