Farmers' Machinery Syndicate (11th Hampshire) v Shaw
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE HARMAN |
| Judgment Date | 19 December 1960 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1960] EWCA Civ J1219-2 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Date | 19 December 1960 |
[1960] EWCA Civ J1219-2
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
The Master of the Rolls
(Lord Evershed)
Lord Justice Harman and
Lord Justice Donovan.
MR PATRICK BROWNE, Q.C., and MR RAYMOND PHILLIPS (instructed by the Solicitor of Inland Revenue) appeared as Counsel for the Appellant.
MR CHARLES SCHOLEFIELD, Q.C. and the Hon. G. PONSONBY (instructed by Messrs Ellis & Fairbairn) appeared as Counsel for the Respondents.
: I will ask Lord Justice Harman to give the first Judgment.
This is an appeal from a decision of the Lands Tribunal, given on the 11th January, 1960, and the decision of Mr Erskine Simes is really contained in these words: "I am satisfied that this hereditament is occupied together with agricultural land and is used solely in connection with agricultural operations thereon and is therefore an 'agricultural hereditament' within Section 2 of the 1928 Act". The Act to which he referred was the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Apt 1928 passed to put things straight before the reliefs which are contained in the Local Government Act 1929, and, therefore, one looks at the definition in the earlier Act and finds the substantive provisions in the later. In the Act of 1920 Section 2 provides: "(1) In this Act the expression 'agricultural hereditament' means any hereditament being agricultural land or agricultural buildings, (2) In this Act the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them: 'Agricultural land' means any land used as arable meadow or pasture ground only…. 'Agricultural buildings' means buildings (other than dwelling houses) occupied together with agricultural land or being or forming part of a market garden, and in either case used solely in connection with agricultural operations thereon". When one turns to the Act of 1929 it is provided by Section 67: "No person shall, in respect of any period beginning on or after the appointed day, be liable to pay rates in respect of any agricultural land or agricultural buildings", and for the definition of those you are referred back to the 1928 Act.
Now the facts in this case which were communicated to the Lands Tribunal were of a very jejune character and when the matter came before us we felt bound to remit the case or to adjourn it in order to see whether there could be an agreement about the facts, and I am glad to say that the parties very sensibly came to an agreed statement of facts which is now before us. From that it appears — and this is a welcome thing in agriculture — that fourteen farmers in the Selborns district of Hampshire decided to enter into a co-operative venture. In these days grain is harvested largely in combine harvesters and it is well known that combine harvesters bag the grain in a very wet state, and in any normal year, and I think probably in any year, it is necessary to dry the grain artificially after it has been bagged. A grain dryer is an expensive machine and these fourteen farmers decided to go in for one, as I say, on a co-operative basis and with the aid of a loan they bought such a machine which, of course, needed land to stand it upon. A piece of land was chosen which was part of the farm of one of the protagonists in the venture and was conveyed to four of the persons who were in the venture, they being I think the youngest of the farmers who were supposed to be concerned in the matter. In fact one of them did not become a member of the syndicate, which I shall mention in a moment, but that does not really matter. It was conveyed to them in fee simple. It was further declared, though it was not necessary, that they should hold it upon trusts for themselves as joint tenants. The contributors to the scheme were fourteen persons and they produced the money in unequal shares, or such of it as was not borrowed from the mortgagee. I say fourteen persons, and that is true in this sense, that they were the moving spirits in the fourteen farms under their control, but in fact one of these farms belonged not to Mr Wright, who is the chairman of the syndicate and the leading member of it, but to A.B. Wright (Farmers) Ltd., of which he was either the managing or the governing director, and that has an importance in the case which will appear later.
The scheme was that when this machine was installed on this piece of land, which was quite a small piece of land, it should be managed by a Committee who in fact during the operating part of the year between August and October employed two men night and day to look after the machinery which was going through the 24 hours. During the rest of the year for the most part the grain dryer was not in use and the keys were kept by Mr Wright at his farm because, for one thing, he was the chairman of the syndicate and, for another, the dryer was on what had been his land and therefore most convenient to his farm no doubt. Generally speaking each member of the syndicate had what is called a quota, that is to say so many tons of grain which he might send by right to the dryer to be dried. If he wanted grain over his quota sent, he had to ask for it; he had no right but the management committee could allow him, if there was a vacancy, to have more than his quota dried. If he did not send any grain to the dryer he must nevertheless pay his subscription for the year on a theoretical basis.
The scheme, so far as I know, was quite a successful one and it has been sought to rate the grain dryer. The objection is raised, which has found favour with Mr Simes, that this comes within the 1929 Act, as I have explained it. The appellant Valuation Officer comes here and he says that the Tribunal was not entitled either on the facts that it knew, still less on the facts we now know, to come to the conclusion which it reached, Mr Simes reached his conclusion on broad grounds, namely, that this was the kind of land or buildings which the legislature was meaning to relieve when it gave relief to agricultural land and agricultural buildings. I think, speaking in general terms, one may agree with him, but it remains to be seen whether the scheme which Parliament has laid down does fit this particular co-operative effort which it might well not have thought of in 1929.
This kind of machinery is a novelty in this country, as indeed, as I understand it, is this kind of co-operative effort. I may say at once so far as I am concerned I cannot see my way to fit the facts into the form of the legislation. You have got first of all to find that these are agricultural buildings. That they are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
William Neville Farmer (valuation Officer) v Hambleton District Council and Another
...the legislative history of Part 1 of the 1971 Act: that the decision of the court of appeal in Farmer's Machinery Syndicate -v- Shaw [1961] 1 WLR 393 lead to the passing of s. 26(4)(b) of the General Rate Act 1967 (originally included in the Rating and Valuation Act 1961). The purpose was t......
-
Prior v Sovereign Chicken Ltd
...1961, was introduced to cover certain varieties of agricultural co-operative as a result of the decision of this court in the Farmers' Machinery Syndicate v. Shaw [1961] AER, 285. Several points had become clear from that case in relation to the law as it previously stood. One was that wher......
-
Solihull Corporation v Gas Council
...dictate as to the nature of the research, but no right to interfere with the Board's occupation of its freehold land, 17 Farmers Machinery Syndicate v. Shaw decided in this court on the 19th December 1960, concerned a grass dryer bought by a syndicate, vested in trustees, and managed by a......
- Prior (Vo) v Golden Produce Ltd