Daniel James Adams v Thomas James Cecil Jones

An application under section 39 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 is not invalid merely because it initially names the wrong landlord. The statute requires an application to the Tribunal within three months, but does not make correct identification of the landlord a condition of validity. The landlord’s procedural rights can be protected by notice, joinder, amendment or substitution under the Agricultural Land Tribunal Rules. A failure correctly to identify the landlord is therefore an irregularity capable of being cured, particularly where the landlord has suffered no prejudice. Appeals from the Welsh Agricultural Land Tribunal lie to the Upper Tribunal under section 6 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1954, and permission is not required.

Following the death of the tenant of an agricultural holding in Wales, Thomas Jones applied under Part IV of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 for succession to the tenancy. His application named Daniel Adams, the sole director of the landlord company, rather than the company itself. The three-month statutory period expired before the error was corrected.

The Agricultural Land Tribunal concluded that the mistake was an irregularity, substituted the company as respondent and allowed the application to proceed. Adams appealed, arguing that the application was invalid because it had not been made against the landlord and that the defect could not be cured after expiry of the statutory period. The appeal also raised whether permission was required to appeal from the Welsh Tribunal.

1. Permission to appeal. Appeals from the Welsh Agricultural Land Tribunal are governed by section 6 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1954, as amended by the Transfer of Tribunal Functions Order 2013. Section 11 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 applies to appeals from the First-tier Tribunal, not to appeals from the Welsh Tribunal. No permission was therefore required.
2. Validity of the application. Section 39 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 requires an eligible person to make an application to the Tribunal within three months. It does not expressly require the landlord to be named as a respondent or require the correct landlord’s identity to appear in the original application.
3. The landlord has important statutory rights, including the opportunity to express views on suitability and to seek consent to a Case G notice to quit. Those rights are protected by the statutory and procedural scheme, including the requirements for notice and the Tribunal’s powers to add parties and regulate proceedings.
4. Applying the approach identified in Natt v Osman [2014] EWCA Civ 1520 and Elim Court RTM Company Ltd v Avon Freeholds Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 89, correct identification of the landlord was not a critical condition of validity. The statutory scheme contemplated that an applicant might not know the landlord’s identity and did not make the right to apply dependent on providing that information. The application was valid when made. The misidentification was an irregularity under rule 47 of the Agricultural Land Tribunals (Rules) Order 2007 and could be cured by substituting the company, without any need to rely on retrospective extension of the section 39 time limit.
5. The company knew of the application through its sole director and suffered no prejudice. The Agricultural Land Tribunal had therefore reached the correct conclusion. The appeal was dismissed.

• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): the appeal from the Agricultural Land Tribunal (Wales) was dismissed. The substitution of the landlord company as respondent was upheld.