Shirley v Crabtree

For succession to an agricultural tenancy on retirement, the livelihood condition in section 50(2)(a) of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 is assessed by reference to the seven-year period ending when the retirement notice is given. An applicant who satisfies that condition at that date does not have to re-establish it by reference to a further rolling seven-year period ending at the Tribunal hearing. Section 53(5) does not determine which eligibility conditions can subsequently be lost. The occupancy condition may remain subject to later change because of its present-tense formulation, but that does not extend to the livelihood condition.

The trustees, as landlords, challenged a direction of the Agricultural Land Tribunal entitling Ruth Crabtree to succeed to an agricultural tenancy on the retirement of her father, John Foster. The Tribunal found that she derived her only or principal livelihood from agricultural work on the holding for the required five years in the seven years ending with the retirement notice, and that she was otherwise eligible and suitable.

The case was stated under section 6(1) of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1954. The question was whether section 50(2)(a) of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 also required the livelihood condition to be satisfied by reference to the seven years ending with the Tribunal hearing.

1. The Tribunal had not erred in directing that Mrs Crabtree was entitled to a tenancy. The livelihood condition was required to be satisfied for the seven-year period ending on the date of the retirement notice. Once satisfied, that qualification was not lost merely because the Tribunal hearing occurred later.

2. Section 50(2)(a) had to be construed purposively. In the context of the statutory eligibility scheme, the ordinary and natural meaning of the last seven years was the seven years expiring when the retirement notice was given. Although the provision could have been clearer, nothing in sections 49 or 51 to 58 altered that definition.

3. Section 53(5) did not provide a general temporal rule for eligibility. It required the Tribunal to be satisfied that the nominated successor was eligible when the notice was given and had not subsequently ceased to be eligible, but it did not identify which eligibility or status conditions could be lost. The occupancy condition could be lost because section 50(2)(b) used the present tense. That reasoning did not apply to the differently worded livelihood condition.

4. Jackson v Hall [1980] AC 854 concerned the present-tense occupancy condition and the acquisition of eligibility. It gave only limited assistance on whether livelihood eligibility could later be lost. The statutory scheme instead treated the livelihood requirement as satisfaction of five out of seven years, with the years selected by the applicant, as recognised in Bailey v Sitwell [1986] 2 EGLR 7.

5. Requiring a second, rolling seven-year assessment ending at the hearing would create substantial uncertainty and could require evidence over nine years. Delay caused by Tribunal availability, witnesses, negotiations or procedural hearings should not force an otherwise qualified successor to renew the case for eligibility. The question stated by the Tribunal was answered in the negative.

The Agricultural Land Tribunal heard the succession application on 24 July 2006 and gave its decision on 15 September 2006. At the landlords’ request, it stated a case for the opinion of the High Court under section 6(1) of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1954. The High Court answered the stated question in favour of the nominated successor.