Tenancy of agricultural holding — Tenant giving retirement notice and nominating respondent as successor – Sections 50(2)(a) and 57 of Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 — Whether respondent fulfilling livelihood condition — Tribunal finding condition satisfied for five of seven years prior to retirement notice — Whether seven years running to date of retirement notice or date of tribunal hearing — Appeal dismissed
The appellants were the landlords under a tenancy of an agricultural holding that was held by the respondent’s father. The respondent applied to the Agricultural Lands Tribunal, under section 53(7) of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986, for a direction that she was entitled to a tenancy of the holding as her father’s nominated successor on his retirement. Section 50(2)(a) provided that the person named in such a notice could apply under section 57 provided that he or she had derived his or her only or principal source of livelihood from their agricultural work on the holding for five years “in the last seven years”. The tribunal made the direction sought after finding that the respondent fulfilled the livelihood requirement in respect of the seven-year period ending with the date of her father’s retirement notice.
The appellants appealed by way of case stated. The issue before the court was whether, on a section 53(7) application, the respondent was required to fulfil the livelihood requirement not only by reference to the seven years ending with the date of the retirement notice but also by reference to the seven years ending with the date of the tribunal hearing. Arguing in favour of that construction, the appellants relied upon the requirement in section 53(5) for the tribunal to be satisfied both that a nominated successor was an eligible person at the date of the retirement notice and that “he has not subsequently ceased to be such a person”. The respondent sought to uphold the tribunal’s view that section 53(5)(b) did not require an applicant to prove that the livelihood requirement was satisfied at all times, and that once the eligibility condition had been established, it was not subsequently lost.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
Construing section 50(2)(a) purposively, and according to its ordinary and natural meaning, a nominated successor had to satisfy the livelihood condition by reference only to the seven-year period ending with the date upon which the retirement notice had been given, and not the seven years ending with the date of the tribunal hearing. Nothing in the section indicated that eligibility by reason of livelihood at the date of the retirement notice could subsequently be lost. Otherwise, considerable uncertainty would be caused in cases where, as here, the hearing date fell a considerable time after the giving of the notice.
Martin Rodger QC (instructed by Mills & Reeve, of Norwich) appeared for the appellants; Caroline Hutton (instructed by Nigel Davis Solicitors, of Belper) appeared for the respondent.
Sally Dobson, barrister
