Tenants running community free farm on property – Landlord obtaining uncontested possession order – Tenants subsequently learning of potential defence and appealing – Recorder holding no jurisdiction to hear appeal – Whether Recorder had jurisdiction to hear appeal – Whether tenants entitled to statutory protection – Court of Appeal dismissing appeal
In 1992 the Department of the Environment compulsorily acquired a farmhouse, a bungalow and some outbuildings, together with 9.5 acres of land (the property) for the purpose of a road widening scheme, which was not proceeded with. The buildings were occupied by squatters which included the appellants. The appellants used the farm as a community free farm, which members of the community were encouraged to participate in. In order to regularise the position, the Secretary of State for Transport entered into a series of tenancy agreements granting a succession of six-month terms to the appellants. The final tenancy was dated January 5 1994 for a six-month term at £5,400 pa, payable weekly. The only rental payments made since December 1994 were income support payments received directly from the DSS representing approximately one-third of the rent due. After June 13 1994 the appellants held over as monthly tenants. Subsequently the Secretary of State decided to sell the property and served a notice to quit and he commenced proceedings for possession. At the hearing the appellants did not maintain any defence to the claim and the district judge made an order for possession and payment of mesne profits. The appellants belatedly took legal advice and learned that they might be entitled to protection from eviction under either Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 or the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 and accordingly, they appealed pursuant to Ord 37, r 6 of the County Court Rules. The Recorder dismissed the appellant’s appeal concluding that there were no grounds upon which he could entertain the appeal under Order 37, rule 6 of the County Court Rules. The appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal. It was accepted by the Secretary of State that the recorder had taken a too restrictive approach to his jurisdiction to hear the appeal, but it was submitted that the recorder would have been confined only to the material before the district judge.
Held The appeal was dismissed.
1. The recorder was not confined to the material which had been before the district judge. If he had reached a different conclusion on jurisdiction, he would have had to consider whether to allow the further evidence to be admitted and would have been bound to do so. The conditions for fresh evidence did not need to be satisfied since the decision had not been on the merits. The district judge had simply accepted that there was no defence.
2. Although the appellants were the tenants, they did not hold the tenancy agreement as trustees for all the people who made use of the community free farm. Therefore it was not only the appellants carrying on the business and accordingly they were not business tenants protected by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.
3. Although it was arguable that the land was being used for an agricultural purpose, the land was not being used for the purposes of trade or business. The appellants were carrying on a non-economic activity. Therefore they were not entitled to protection under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986.
James Goudie QC and Martin Rodger (instructed by McGrath & Co, of Birmingham) appeared for the appellants; Romie Tager QC and Anthony Harspool (instructed by Machins, of Luton) appeared for the respondent.
