Davies v Price
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE PARKER,The Master Of the Rolls |
| Judgment Date | 27 February 1958 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1958] EWCA Civ J0227-3 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Date | 27 February 1958 |
[1958] EWCA Civ J0227-3
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
The Master of the Rolls
(Lord Evershed)
Lord Justice Parker
and
Lord Justice Sellers.
Mr E. P. WALLIS-JONES (instructed by Messrs. Rider, Heaton, & Mills, Agents for Messrs. Clement Jonas & Co., Holywell, ) appeared as Counsel for the Applicant.
Mr RONALD (instructed by Messrs, & Co., Agents for Messrs. H. A. Cope & Roberts, Holywell, Flintshire) appeared as Counsel for the Respondents, Madeline Lloyd Price and Helen Lloyd Price.
THE AGRICULTURAL LAND TRIBUNAL for WALES are not legally represented.
: I will ask Lord Justice Parker to deliver the first Judgment.
In this case Mr Wallis-Jones moves on behalf of Owen Lewis Davies, a tenant of a farm known as Springhill Farm, Holywell in the County of Flint, for an order of certiorari to bring up and quash a decision of the Agricultural Lend Tribunal for Wales, dated the 14th October, 1957, upholding the Minister's consent to the termination of the Applicant's tenancy of that farm. Mr Wallis-Jones also asks for an order of mandamus directed to the Tribunal to hear and determine the matter according to law. That of course only arises if and when this Court grants an order quashing the decision.
The order of certiorari is asked for on two grounds: (1) that there is an error of law on the face of the record and (2) that the Tribunal acted in excess of jurisdiction. Each of those grounds, if proved, would entitle the Applicant to an order of certiorari.
Before considering the decision and those two contentions, it is I think necessary to refer to a few sections of the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1948. That Act substantially interfered with the ordinary law of landlord and tenant in regard to agricultural holdings, and in particular imposed restrictions in regard to the operation of notices to quit. By Section 24, subsection 1 it was provided: "Where notice to quit an agricultural holding or part of an agricultural holding is given to the tenant thereof, and not later than one month from the giving of the notice to quit the tenant serves on the landlord a counter-notice in writing requiring that this subsection shall apply to the notice to quit, then, subject to the provisions of the next following subsection, the notice to quit shall not have effect unless the Minister consents to the operation thereof".
Then by Section 25, subsection 1 it is provided: "Without prejudice to the discretion of the Minister in a case falling within paragraphs (a) to (e) of this subsection, the Minister shall withhold his consent under the last foregoing section to the operation of a notice to quit an agricultural holding or port of an agricultural holding unless he is satisfied (a) that the carrying out of the purpose for which the landlord proposed to terminate the tenancy is desirable in the interests of efficient farming, whether as respects good estate management or good husbandry or otherwise". The other heads in that subsection are not relevant and I can pass to subsection 5 of that section, which provides: "Where the Minister or the Agricultural Land Tribunal consent under the last foregoing section to the operation of a notice to quit, the Minister or the Tribunal may impose such conditions as appear to the Minister or the Tribunal requisite for securing that the land to which the notice relates will be used for the purpose for which the landlord proposes to terminate the tenancy." Pausing there, I should say that the functions of the Minister in regard to the granting or withholding of consent have been delegated by him to the Local Agricultural executive Committees. That is, as it were, the first stage, but by subsection 4 of Section 25 it is provided: "If the landlord or the tenant is dissatisfied with the Minister's decision to withhold or to give his consent as aforesaid, the landlord or tenant may within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner require that the matter shall be referred to the Agricultural Land Tribunal".
While considering the Act, it is, I think, convenient to refer to certain other provisions whereby the landlord can get possession of an agricultural holding. Thus (and I can deal with this quite shortly) by Section 27 procedure is provided for the landlord applying to the Minister for a certificate that the tenant is not fulfilling his responsibilities to farm in accordance with the rules of good husbandry. If the Minister does so certify, then going back to section 24, subsection 2 (c), if the landlord within six months of that certificate serves notice to quit which on its face states the certificate, he is enabled to get possession without applying for any consent at all.
Accordingly, there are broadly speaking two ways by which a landlord can get possession; First, by showing that the tenant is a thoroughly bad farmer and getting a certificate of bad husbandry, in which case, as I have said, the consent of the Minister is not required, or he can proceed by serving a notice to quit and obtaining consent, always assuming a counter-notice has been served by the tenant, under one of the heads sot out in subsection 1 of Section 25.
In the present case there was no question of the landlord obtaining such a certificate but he served a notice to quit this farm; the tenant served a counter-notice and the matter in due course came before the local Agricultural Executive Committee for their consent on behalf of the Minister. The Committee in fact granted consent to the operation of the notice to quit and the tenant being dissatisfied referred the matter to the Agricultural Land Tribunal. So much for the history of the matter.
The decision, of which a certified copy has now been produced, as provided by Regulation 17 of the Agriculture (Procedure of Agricultural Land Tribunals) Order, 1954, Statutory Instrument 1954, No. 1138, is in these terms: The Tribunal established in pursuance of the Agriculture Act, 1947, to consider the Appeal of Owen Lewis Davies, of Springhill Farm, Holywell, in the County of Flint, against the decision of the Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food to grant consent to the operation of a Notice to Quit in respect of the Holding known as Springhill Farm in the Parish of Holywell Urban in the said County of Flint, containing 68.555 acres or thereabouts, in the occupation of the said Owen Lewis Davies as Tenant thereof, sat at the Court Room, Holywell aforesaid, on the 30th day of August, 1957, and 12th day Of October, 1957. Having heard the evidence of all parties concerned and made an inspection of the land, the Tribunal hereby determines as follows:- The Landlords have satisfied the Tribunal that it is in the interests of efficient farming of the land in question to terminate the tenancy of the Appellant. The Appellant has been employed as a full-time shift worker at a factory in Flint since 1954; the standard of production is and has been for some time unsatisfactory; and the holding has been inefficiently farmed in many important respects. The Tribunal finds no ground upon which to exercise its discretion in favour of the Appellant, and the Appeal is accordingly dismissed." The Tribunal then go on to extend the time for the operation of the notice to quit.
It will be observed at once that the opening sentence of that decision does not follow the wording of Section 25, subsection 1 (a), which is the only relevant head under which consent could be granted. It makes no reference at all to the purpose for which the landlord proposed to terminate the tenancy and does not on its face consider whether user as proposed by the landlord is more desirable in the interests of efficient farming than continued user by the tenant. The only reason expressed in the decision is that the tenant is a thoroughly bad farmer. This, says Mr Wallis-Jones, discloses an error of law since, as he contends, that of itself...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission
...to correct an error of law. I think that if these views are correct the only case cited which was plainly wrongly decided is Davies v. Price [1958] 2 W.L.R. 434. But in a number of other cases some of the grounds of judgment are questionable. 16 I can now turn to the provisions of the Order......
-
Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission
...to correct an error of law. I think that if these views are correct the only case cited which was plainly wrongly decided is Davies v. Price [1958] 2 W.L.R. 434. But in a number of other cases some of the grounds of judgment are questionable. 16 I can now turn to the provisions of the Order......
- Bauer (M) Sdn Bhd v Daewoo Corporation
- District Council Central, Province Wellesley v Yegappan
-
Retreating to the History of Judicial Review?
...See Anisminic [1969] 2 AC 147, 171, 199, 200. That case discussed dozens of precedents, but over- turned only one, namely Davies v Price [1958] 1 WLR 434, which had applied the view that jurisdictioncannot be ‘lost’ by errors committed in the course of a matter properly 75. See Kirk (2010) ......