Landlord and tenant – Agricultural Land Tribunal – Procedure – Respondent applying to Agricultural Land Tribunal (ALT) in Wales for succession on death of tenant – Application containing mistake as to name of landlord – ALT ruling mistake not fatal and substituting correct name – Appellant landlord appealing – Whether permission required for appeal to Upper Tribunal from the decision of ALT – Whether application valid – Whether mistake capable of correction – Appeal dismissed
In April 2019 the respondent applied to the Agricultural Land Tribunal (ALT) under Part IV of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 for a direction entitling him to a new tenancy of Cyffionos, an agricultural holding at Cross Inn, Llandysul, Ceredigion, following the death of his father, who had been tenant of the holding since 1966. The application contained a mistake. The landlord of the holding was a company, but on the application form the respondent named the appellant as landlord. The appellant had never been the landlord of the holding but he was the sole director of the company. By the time the respondent realised the mistake, it was too late to make a new application.
The ALT decided that the mistake was not fatal to the respondent’s application. It took the view that anything the appellant knew was also known by the company and that the company had therefore been aware, within three months of the father’s death, that an application had been made to the ALT for a direction entitling the respondent to succeed to the tenancy. Accordingly, the ALT substituted the company’s name on the application in place of the appellant.
The appellant appealed. The issue was whether the ALT was entitled to take that course or whether the application was not valid at all because it was not made against the landlord of the holding and could not be cured by amendment or substitution after the expiry of the three-month time limit provided by section 39(1) of the 1986 Act. There was also a question whether permission was required to bring an appeal from the ALT to the Upper Tribunal.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
(1) Before 1 July 2013, a right of appeal against any decision of an ALT lay to the High Court under section 6 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1954 by a reference on a question of law. If the ALT refused to make a reference, the appellant had the right to apply to the High Court for an order directing it to do so. There was therefore a requirement to obtain the consent or permission either of the ALT or the High Court before an appeal could be brought.
On the creation of the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) on 1 July 2013, the jurisdiction formerly exercised by ALTs in England was transferred to the FTT. Under section 11 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, a right of appeal from a decision of the FTT lay to the Upper Tribunal on a point of law and permission to appeal was required. However, the change did not apply to the ALT in Wales. Instead, section 6 of the 1954 Act was amended and an appeal on any point of law from a decision of the ALT now had to be made to the Upper Tribunal. In its amended form, section 6 made no mention of a requirement to obtain permission for an appeal. The position was therefore clear. The right of appeal from the ALT was under section 6 of the 1954 Act, and there was no requirement to obtain the permission of the ALT or of the Upper Tribunal.
(2) The error in the present case related to the validity of the steps taken to commence the proceedings themselves, rather than to the satisfaction of a prior procedural condition. The 1986 Act laid down no procedure for a preliminary notice seeking the agreement of the landlord to the grant of a new tenancy, or notifying the landlord of an intention to make an application. The only step required by section 39 was to make the application itself within the time allowed and the requirement to give notice of the application to the landlord was left by section 40(5) to be dealt with by Agricultural Land Tribunals (Rules) Order 2007.
Part IV of the 1986 Act provided for an application to be made to the tribunal for a direction for a new tenancy without the need for any previous contact between the applicant and the landlord. The giving of notice to the landlord was relegated to the rules by section 40(5) which did not say whether the landlord was to be informed before, after, or at the same time as the application. Rule 40(2) of the 2007 Rules required that, before making an application, notice had to be given to “the interested parties”. Consideration of the statutory scheme did not compel the conclusion that a valid application had to include the correct name of the landlord. The 1986 Act required instead that rules made provision for the landlord to be given separate notice of the application. Once the applicant had made an application to the tribunal under section 39, the Act and the procedural Rules vested the tribunal with certain duties and with the procedural tools to carry them out.
(3) Whether or not the landlord was named in the application or participated in the proceedings, the tribunal was required to satisfy itself that the applicant was an eligible person at the date of death and had not ceased to be so: section 39(2). Before making a direction, the tribunal was also required to afford the landlord an opportunity of stating his views on the suitability of the applicant: section 39(7) and an opportunity of applying for consent to a notice to quit: section 44(1).
Accordingly, it was not critical that the landlord’s name be included in the application when it was first submitted. A failure correctly to name the landlord of the holding was not fatal to the validity of the application. If a valid application could be made without correctly naming the landlord, time would stop running against the applicant when that step was taken. Whether an order adding or substituting a new person as respondent related back to the date of the original application would not matter since the only step required by section 39 would have been taken in time. In all the circumstances, the ALT had reached the right conclusion.
Ewan Paton (instructed by JCP Solicitors) appeared for the appellant; Andrew Williams (instructed by Allington Hughes Solicitors) appeared for the respondent.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister
