Macnabb v Anderson
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 22 May 1957 |
| Date | 22 May 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 15. |
| Court | Court of Session (Inner House - Second Division) |
2ND DIVISION.
Landlord and TenantLease of agricultural subjectsBreach of conditions of leaseNotice to remedy breachSubsequent notice to quitValidity of noticesAgricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1949 (12, 13 and 14 Geo. VI, cap. 75), sec. 25 (1) and (2) (e) and (f).
The Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1949, sec. 25 (1), contains provisions enabling the tenant of an agricultural holding to prevent a notice to quit from taking effect unless the Secretary of State consents. Sec. 25 (2) enacts that these provisions shall not apply in various circumstances, which include the cases where (e) the tenant has failed to comply with a written demand by the landlord requiring him within a reasonable time to remedy any breach of any condition of his tenancy which was capable of being remedied, and where (f) the landlord's interest in the holding has been materially prejudiced by a breach by the tenant which was not capable of being remedied in reasonable time and at economic cost.
The landlord of an agricultural holding served on his tenants a notice demanding "under sec. 25 (2) (e) and sec. 25 (2) (f)" that certain specified breaches of the conditions of the tenancy should be remedied within one month. He thereafter gave his tenants notice to quit in terms of sec. 25 (2) (e) and (f). Neither in the preliminary notice nor in the notice to quit was differentiation made between sec. 25 (2) (e) and sec. 25 (2) (f), and, in an arbitration which followed, the arbiter proposed to find that the notice to quit was invalid in respect,inter alia, that the preliminary notice did not make clear which breaches of the conditions of tenancy were related to which subhead of sec. 25 (2). The landlord appealed on the ground, inter alia, that the difference between subheads (e) and (f) was one of degree only and that a landlord could not always tell in advance to which subhead a particular breach should be related.
Held that, when seeking to regain possession of a holding, a landlord was bound to make clear in advance what he was demanding of his tenant; that, if he was founding on a breach of the conditions of tenancy, he must decide whether the breach was remediable or not and must commit himself to relying on either sec. 25 (2) (e) or sec. 25 (2) (f); and that, accordingly, in the present case, the preliminary notice was invalid and the subsequent proceedings thereby vitiated.
Dicta of Denning, L. J., in Budge v. HicksELR,[1951] 2 K. B. 335, at p. 341, approved and applied.
On 3rd March 1953 Archibald Corrie Macnabb, of Kinnell House, Killin, landlord of grass parks forming the policies of Kinnell and Auchmore, served a notice on the tenants thereof, Christina, Andrew and James Anderson, demanding under section 25 (2) (e), second part; and section 25 (2) (f) of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1949,1 that certain specified breaches of the conditions of the tenancy should be remedied within a period of
one month, failing which a notice to quit, referring to section 25 (2) (e) and (f), would be issuedThe breaches alleged in this preliminary notice were as follows:"(1) That the interest of the landlord has been materially prejudiced by the non-fulfilment by the tenant of his responsibilities to farm in accordance with the rules of good...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barns-Graham v Lamont
...(7 Edw. VII, cap. 51), First Sched., Form H. 7 Budge v. HicksELR, [1951] 2 K.B. 335, Somervell L.J. at p. 338; Macnabb v. AndersonSC, 1957 S.C. 213, Lord Justice-Clerk Thomson at p. 217. 8 Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1968 (cap. 34), sec. 11 (1) (b). Reference was made to the......