William Smith (Wakefield) Ltd v Parisride Ltd

An application to require an agricultural tribunal to state a case should be granted only where the proposed question raises a fairly arguable point of law. Under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986, a tenant may serve concurrently a counter-notice referring a notice to quit to the Tribunal and a notice requiring arbitration. The counter-notice is not invalid merely because the arbitration notice is served at the same time. The statutory scheme contemplates sequential choices, but does not address concurrent service in a way that defeats the counter-notice. In deciding whether a fair and reasonable landlord would insist on possession, the Tribunal may consider the extent and consequences of non-compliance and all surrounding circumstances, including the size, nature and profitability of the holding. The application was dismissed because neither proposed question was fairly arguable.

The claimant landlord sought an order under section 6 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1954 requiring the Agricultural Land Tribunal for the Yorkshire and Humberside Area to state a case. The underlying dispute concerned a notice to quit served on the defendant tenant of an agricultural holding under Case D of Schedule 3 to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986.

The tenant had served, in the same envelope, a counter-notice requiring the notice to quit to be referred to the Tribunal and a notice referring the matter to arbitration. The Tribunal held that the counter-notice remained effective and refused consent to the notice to quit. The landlord challenged both conclusions, raising the construction of section 28(4) and the Tribunal’s approach under section 28(5).

1. The application was dismissed. Neither proposed question raised a fairly arguable point of law justifying an order requiring the Tribunal to state a case. The applicable threshold was identified by reference to Clegg v Fraser [1982] 2 EGLR 7.

2. The tenant’s concurrent service of a counter-notice under section 28(2) and a notice requiring arbitration did not invalidate the counter-notice. Section 28(4)(a) rendered ineffective a counter-notice already served when an effective arbitration notice was subsequently served. It did not address, and could not fairly be construed as invalidating, notices served concurrently.

3. The statutory notices did not themselves initiate proceedings. Tribunal proceedings required an application by the landlord, while arbitration required the appointment of an arbitrator. Accordingly, concurrent proceedings were only a theoretical possibility. Any practical difficulty for a landlord could be managed by seeking an arbitrator and, if necessary, applying for an extension of time to commence Tribunal proceedings.

4. Section 28(5) required the Tribunal to consider the extent of the tenant’s failure, the consequences of that failure and the circumstances surrounding it. The Tribunal was entitled to consider the size and nature of the farm and its profitability when deciding whether a fair and reasonable landlord would insist on possession. It did not reopen the arbitrator’s decisions or excuse the tenant’s breaches merely because it considered those matters.

5. The Tribunal’s failure expressly to mention the possible availability of grants did not raise a sufficiently arguable question of law. The claimant was to pay the costs of the parties, with assessment to be dealt with subsequently if required.

The judgment describes proceedings before the Agricultural Land Tribunal for the Yorkshire and Humberside Area. The Tribunal refused the landlord’s request to state a case. The High Court dismissed the application for an order requiring it to do so.