Two parcels of land let on agricultural tenancy — Tenancies beginning at different times — Agreement at rent review expressing one rent for both holdings — Whether tenancy for one holding or two parcels — Judge finding agreement for one holding only — Tenant’s appeal allowed on that point
The tenant, A, leased from the plaintiff landlord 242.5 acres (98.14ha) of agricultural land at Elderness Wash, Whittlesey, Cambridge. A also owned the nearby Chapel Farm. Some 154 acres (62.32ha) (“the blue land”) was let by the trustees to A in 1968. That land was separated from Chapel Farm by the green land (some 88 acres/35.61ha), which was also let by the trustees to A by an agreement in December 1986. Both tenancies commenced on October 11 and were expressed to be a tenancy from year to year, with 12-months notice in writing to be given by either party expiring on October 11 in any year. The two agreements were not in the same form and there were obligations arising under one of them not found in the other. Both were subject to the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 (as amended).
In 1982, agreement was reached on a rent for “242.496 acres”. At the next triennial review, notice was given concerning what rent was to payable “in respect of the said holdings”. The landlord undertook not to refer the matter to arbitration and expressed the rent for “the holding … 242.496 acres … the tenant … agrees (1) that the rent shall as from 11 October 1985 be [£7,200] … and (3) in consideration … the within-written agreement varied as aforesaid … shall remain in force”. In 1983 the tenant received notification that the blue and green land were within a site of special scientific interest and A entered into a management agreement with the Nature Conservancy Council thereby receiving consideration. The appeal arose over the October 11 1990 review, after the rent issue was referred to arbitration under the terms of the Act. The arbitrator stated a case for the county court, concerning, inter alia, whether the rent or rents were to be payable on the basis that there were separate agricultural holdings comprising the blue land and green land. The judge answered that the total rent under the agreement of October 1985 was charged out of the total holding, ie a single holding and a single rent. Subject to that the blue and green land were held on the respective terms of the original leases. He also held that: (1) the management agreement was a proper source of evidence for the statutory objective of fixing the rent, its weight being a matter for the arbitrator; and (2) the “marriage value” of the holding with other land in the vicinity was a relevant consideration.
Held The tenant’s appeal was allowed in part.
1. The landlord’s reference to the “within written agreement” was a reference to the agreements for both the blue and the green land. All the terms of both agreements remained in full force subject to the variation as to the rent. Thus, the parties had not sought to achieve a single lease of all the land at an aggregate rent, but the continuation of two otherwise separate tenancies.
2. The management agreement could involve offset by compensation and the existence of such offset had to be a relevant factor in assessing the market rent. The appeal was dismissed on that point.
3. Similarly, the appeal was dismissed with regard to the marriage value as it was a relevant factor for the arbitrator’s consideration.
Derek Wood QC and Janet Bignall (instructed by Burges Salmon, of Bristol) appeared for the landlord; David Neuberger QC and David Elvin (instructed by Mills & Reeve, of Norwich) appeared for the tenant.
