Agricultural Holding in UK Law

In order that a notice to quit an agricultural holding should be good, it must be clear and unambiguous: and for that purpose it must eitherbe a simple notice without stating reasons at all, in which case it will operate under section 24, sub-section 1; or it must be a notice stating reasons as prescribed by sub-section 2, in which case it will operate under sub-section 2. In order that a notice to quit an agricultural holding should be good, it must be clear and unambiguous: and for that purpose it must eitherbe a simple notice without stating reasons at all, in which case it will operate under section 24, sub-section 1; or it must be a notice stating reasons as prescribed by sub-section 2, in which case it will operate under sub-section 2.

If any clause such as clause 27 was valid landlords might well insist upon a similar clause being introduced into every lease; and prospective tenants, having no money with which to buy the land they wanted to farm, would, in reality, have had little choice but to agree. Accordingly if clause 27 is enforceable the security of tenure which Parliament clearly intended to confer, and did confer upon tenant farmers for the public good would have become a dead letter.

Thus the time for the ending of a tenancy is a matter of common interest both to a landlord and to his tenant. It may suit them both to determine a tenancy without waiting for what may be as long as nearly two years to bring it to an end. No statute could have so absurd an intention as to constrain a landlord and a tenant of an agricultural holding to remain bound in that relationship at a time when neither desires that it should endure.

It has been hold by this Court that there is a lamentable gap in the statute, A tenant of an agricultural holding for a fixed period betwoen one and two years is not entitled to the protection of the Act at all. He has to go out of his holding at the end of his terra without any protection, (See Gladstone v. Bower, 1960, 2 queen's Bench, p. 384). The gap has not been closed by Parliament even to this day, although we are told there is an agricultural Bill before Parliament at the moment.

I am driven to the conclusion that, if a land owner chooses to grant other persons a tenancy of agricultural land (whether or not including himself as a tenant), public policy (affirmatively) requires that those other tenants should have authority, or be treated as having authority, to serve an effective counter-notice under section 2(1) of the 1977 Act on behalf of all the tenants without his concurrence, and thus (negatively) requires the avoidance of any contractual condition, whether express or implied and whether contained in the tenancy agreement itself or in a partnership agreement or elsewhere, which purports to deny those other tenants such authority.

If it were ever permissible for the Court to repair a defective Act of Parliament I should be very glad to do so in this case so far as it can. The Court would always allow the intention of a Statute to override the defects of wording but their ability to do so is limited by the recognised canons of interpretation. But here for the reasons given by the learned Judge there is no alternative construction it is simply a case of something being overlooked.

I say 'if this case is returned' since I did wonder in the course of argument whether because of the cap the error in reducing the amount as they did was material. However Mr. Rodger supported Mr. Gavaghan in submitting that if I decided the Committee had erred in their approach to voids I should quash the decision and send the case back for reconsideration.