Dawn Bunyan (Valuation Officer) v Fridays Limited

The agricultural exemption under Local Government Finance Act 1988 requires two distinct conditions. A building must be occupied together with agricultural land and used solely in connection with agricultural operations on that or other agricultural land. The 2003 amendment broadened only the use condition; it did not change the established occupation test. That test requires a real single agricultural unit, assessed by common occupation, joint management, timing, proximity and functional connection; common participation in one business is insufficient. Operations in the building need not themselves be agricultural: processing reasonably necessary to make produce marketable can qualify. The Court of Appeal held that the egg-packing buildings satisfied both tests through their connection with the producing farms and dismissed the appeal.

Fridays Limited claimed agricultural rate exemption for an Egg Packing Centre, Egg Packaging Store and Egg Warehouse at Chequer Tree Farm. The buildings were used to weigh, grade and package eggs produced at Fridays Farms and by independent producers, while the land at Chequer Tree Farm was used for arable production.

The Valuation Tribunal for England rejected the exemption. The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) allowed Fridays’ appeal, holding that the buildings were occupied together with agricultural land and used in connection with agricultural operations on other agricultural land: [2024] UKUT 149 (LC). The Valuation Officer appealed on a point of law. The central issue was whether the 2003 amendment changed the meaning of occupied together with, or only the use test in paragraph 3 of Schedule 5.

Appeal dismissed. An appeal from the Upper Tribunal lies only on a point of law under section 13(1) of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

1. Two cumulative tests. Paragraph 3 of Schedule 5 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988 contains separate occupation and use tests. The 2003 amendment altered the use test by allowing connection with agricultural operations on that or other agricultural land. It did not alter the occupation test.
2. Meaning of occupied together with. The phrase retained the meaning authoritatively established in Farmer v Buxted. The relevant buildings and land must be in the same occupation, jointly controlled or managed at the same time, and occupied so as to form a real single agricultural unit. Common participation in one business is insufficient. Geographical proximity is relevant but not conclusive, and the assessment is one of fact and degree: [1993] AC 369.
3. Use test. Operations inside the building need not themselves be agricultural. They qualify if connected with agricultural operations on the relevant land. Operations reasonably necessary to make produce marketable, such as weighing and grading eggs, can satisfy that connection: [1971] AC 160.
4. Application. The Upper Tribunal was entitled to find that the three buildings and Fridays Farms formed a single agricultural unit. Common ownership and occupation, central management, geographical proximity and the functional necessity of weighing and grading supported that conclusion. The 2003 amendment also enabled the use test to be satisfied by connection with land of independent egg producers.
5. The ministerial statement and explanatory notes did not clearly establish an intention to reverse the authoritative occupation test. The appeal was therefore dismissed. The respondent’s alternative argument concerning the proper interpretation of Farmer v Buxted did not require determination.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the Valuation Officer’s appeal and upheld the result reached by the Upper Tribunal.
2. Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): allowed Fridays Limited’s appeal from the Valuation Tribunal for England and held that the three buildings were within the agricultural exemption: [2024] UKUT 149 (LC).
3. Valuation Tribunal for England: the decision was appealed to the Upper Tribunal, which held that the tribunal had made an error of law.