Special case stated by agricultural arbitrator — Whether a notice given under section 8(1) of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 (now section 12(1) of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986) by a landlord demanding arbitration as to rent could be withdrawn by the landlord without the consent of the tenant — No previous authority on this point — After the landlords in this case had purported to withdraw their notice requiring arbitration the tenant applied for the appointment of an arbitrator — It was argued on behalf of the landlords that there was no provision in the 1948 Act preventing the withdrawal of the notice and that the matter was analogous to an ordinary action in the county court whereby a party may discontinue proceedings — It was submitted on the other side that once the notice demanding arbitration was given, setting in motion the statutory procedure, the Act contemplated that the arbitrator would determine the rent unless the procedure was terminated either by agreement between the parties as to the rent or by a failure in due time to agree on an arbitrator or to apply for an appointment of an arbitrator — Held, accepting the tenant’s submissions, that the procedure under the agricultural holdings legislation was more akin to that under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 than to ordinary civil litigation — Hence a notice demanding arbitration as to rent could not be withdrawn unilaterally without the consent of the other party — Judgment for tenant
No cases are
referred to in this report.
This was a special
case stated by the arbitrator, Mr John Lacy Scott FRICS. It related to an
agricultural holding known as Isle of Wight Farm, Gerrards Cross, Bucks, of
which the landlords were the Buckinghamshire County Council and the tenant was
Mr Ian D Gordon.
Robert E Earl,
assistant county solicitor, Bucks County Council, appeared on behalf of the
landlords; Christopher Priday QC (instructed by Horwood & James, of
Aylesbury) represented the tenant.
Giving
judgment, JUDGE BARR said: The matter arising is a question of law raised by an
arbitrator by means of a special case stated by him under the Sixth Schedule to
the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 and in which the facts are succinctly set
out. The question of law is whether a notice given under section 8(1) of the Agricultural
Holdings Act 1948 by a landlord, demanding an arbitration as to rent, can
validly be withdrawn unilaterally without the consent of the tenant. The
relevant anniversary date for the tenancy is September 29. By a notice dated
September 20 1984 the landlord demanded a reference to arbitration of the
amount of the rent payable for the holding from, in effect, September 29 1985.
By letter dated July 29 1985 the landlord’s notice was withdrawn. The tenant
subsequently applied in due time for the appointment of an arbitrator and the
arbitrator was duly appointed. The question is whether the landlord has the
right to withdraw its notice unilaterally. Section 8 of the 1948 Act as amended
provides:
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section,
the landlord or the tenant of an agricultural holding may by notice in writing
served on his tenant or landlord demand that the rent to be payable in respect
of the holding as from the next termination date shall be referred to
arbitration under this Act.
(2) On a reference under subsection (1) of this
section the arbitrator shall determine what rent should be properly payable in
respect of the holding at the date of the reference and accordingly shall, with
effect from the next termination date following the date of the demand for
arbitration, increase or reduce the rent previously payable or direct that it
shall continue unchanged.
There is
nothing in the Act expressly providing that a notice once given can be
unilaterally withdrawn. Once a notice under section 8 has been given the
parties may agree the rent when it would become unnecessary to have an
arbitrator appointed. The only way in which a notice under section 8 expires is
by the failure of either party to apply for the appointment of an arbitrator.
Mr Earl for the landlord has argued that there is no provision in the Act
preventing the landlord from withdrawing his notice. He has also argued that
there is an analogy with the procedure in an ordinary action in the county
court whereby a party may discontinue his proceedings. I do not consider that
this is relevant. In my view the position is more analogous with the Landlord
and Tenant Act 1954 and the Rent Acts than with civil proceedings. What all the
Acts have in common is the protection of the tenant by security of tenure and
control of rent. Restrictions are placed upon the rent that may be obtained and
provision is made that disputes as to the amount of rent are to be determined
by an appropriate body. In the case of agricultural holdings the determination is
by an arbitrator. Mr Priday is right in his submissions. Once the notice is
given, that is a trigger which sets in motion the statutory procedure and the
arbitrator will decide the rent unless the procedure is ended either by an
agreement between the parties as to the rent or by a failure in due time to
agree an arbitrator
Chartered Surveyors, for the appointment of an arbitrator. Therefore I answer
the arbitrator’s question in the special case by saying that the section 8
notice cannot be withdrawn unilaterally without the consent of the other party.
Judgment was
given for the tenant. The landlord was ordered to pay the arbitrator’s costs as
requested in the special case on a scale to be determined by the registrar. The
landlord was also ordered to pay the tenant’s costs of these proceedings on
Scale 3, with a certificate under Order 38 rule 9(1).
