Food Production in UK Law

It follows that, when an application for leave to apply is not made promptly and in any event within three months, the court may refuse leave on the ground of delay unless it considers that there is good reason for extending the period; but, even if it considers that there is such good reason, it may still refuse leave (or, where leave has been granted, substantive relief) if in its opinion the granting of the relief sought would be likely to cause hardship or prejudice (as specified in section 31(6)) or would be detrimental to good administration.

But here again there must be a limit. Everything is saleable at a price, so even storage for a time or very simple treatment is not strictly necessary. One must have regard to ordinary and reasonable practice. But there comes a stage when further operations cannot reasonably be said to be consequential on the agricultural operations of producing the crop. I agree with Lord Hunter when he said in Assessor for Midlothian v. Buccleuch Estates 1962 S.C. 453 at page 459:

In the case of an ordinary farm the agricultural operations are those carried on outside the buildings, and the use of the buildings must be in connection with those operations. They may be so extensive that the only agricultural operations in the market garden are those carried on in those buildings. And even where crops are also grown outside, the use of the glass houses is often not in connection with the agricultural operations on the land outside.

In order to answer the question it is next necessary to consider the uses to which the respective buildings are put so that it can be decided whether such uses are in connection with the agricultural operations on the land and are solely in connection with them. On the undisputed facts I consider that the answer must be in the negative. There are 20 of them and they are used to house the breeding stock. The Appellants buy day-old chicks (hens and cockerels).

No doubt in admitting it, the Tribunal must observe the rules of natural justice, but this does not mean that it must be tested by cross-examination. It only means that the Tribunal must give the other side a fair opportunity of commenting on it and of contradicting it, see Board of Education v. Rice, 1911 Appeal Cases at p. 182: Reg, v. Deputy industrial Injuries Commissioner, Ex parte Moore, 1965, 1 Queen's Bench, p. 490.

If on the view of the statute as a whole you find that the substance of the legislation is within the express powers, then it is not invalidated if incidentally it affects matters which are outside the authorised field. The legislation must not under the guise of dealing with one matter in fact encroach upon the forbidden field.