Agricultural holding — Planning permission — Notice to quit — Case B — Whether notice to quit bad — Whether notice to quit whole holding
The respondent is the tenant under an oral agreement of 1965 of an agricultural holding. The holding is slightly less than one acre and includes an old cowshed and other buildings at the rear of Wentloog Castle, Castleton, Newport, Gwent. The applicant landlord obtained planning permission in July 1986 for the conversion of the buildings into a house. On October 21 1986 the applicant served upon the respondent a notice to quit “all that holding and premises known as the old cowshed and buildings …”. The notice to quit was served on the basis of Case B of section 2(3) of the Agricultural Holdings (Notices to Quit) Act 1977, that the land was required for a use other than for agriculture for which planning permission had been granted. (See now section 26 of, and Schedule 3 to, the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986.)
In accordance with the Agricultural Holdings (Arbitration on Notices) Order 1978, the respondent tenant duly requested that the validity of the reasons upon which the notice to quit had been served be submitted to arbitration. Although the application for arbitration was made within the time-limits, no arbitrator was ever appointed. In proceedings in the country court by the applicant landlord to recover possession, the respondent contended that the notice to quit was bad, because it was ambiguous as to the extent of the land to which it related, or bad as being for part of the holding. Notwithstanding that there had been no arbitration under the agricultural holdings legislation, the respondent submitted that a notice can still be bad at common law. The country court (His Honour Judge Glyn Morgan, February 17 1988) accepted the applicant’s submissions that the notice was in respect of the whole holding and, because there had been no arbitration, the respondent must accept that the notice was valid. The respondent tenant appealed.
Held The appeal was dismissed. The decision of the county court was approved. A notice to quit must be clear and for the whole of the demised premises. It would be unreasonable to construe it as not referring to the whole holding and any reasonable tenant would have taken it as referring to the whole holding. Section 1 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 defines a holding as the aggregate of the land; the words “holding and premises” mean the holding and the buildings on it. Owing to the form of the respondent’s notice of appeal, the court did not have to decide the question as to whether the validity of the notice to quit could only be decided by arbitration.
Doe d. Rodd v Archer
(1811) 14 East 245 and
Doe d. Morgan v Church
(1811) 3 Camp 71 referred to.
William Norris (instructed by Burges Salmon, of Bristol) appeared for the plaintiff; and Joanne Moss (instructed by Robbins Olivey & Blake Lapthorn for Horwood & James, of Aylesbury) appeared for the defendant.
