Macnabb v A. & J. Anderson
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 26 October 1954 |
| Date | 26 October 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 5. |
| Court | Court of Session (Inner House - First Division) |
1ST DIVISION.
Landlord and TenantLease of agricultural subjectsBreach of conditions of leaseNotice to quitValidity of noticeWhether consent of Secretary of State requiredAgricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1949 (12, 13 and 14 Geo. VI, cap. 75), sec. 25 (1) and (2) (d) and (e).
The Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1949, contains in sec. 25 (1) provisions enabling a tenant of an agricultural holding to prevent a notice to quit from taking effect without the consent of the Secretary of State. Sec. 25 (2) enacts that these provisions shall not apply in various circumstances, which, shortly stated, include the cases where (d) the Secretary of State has within the preceding nine months granted a certificate that the tenant was not fulfilling his responsibilities to farm in accordance with the rules of good husbandry and where (e) the tenant has failed to comply with a demand by the landlord requiring him within a reasonable time to remedy any breach of any condition of his tenancy which was not inconsistent with the fulfilment of his responsibilities to farm in accordance with the rules of good husbandry.
The landlord of an agricultural holding gave his tenants notice to quit under sec. 25 (2) (e), and, in an arbitration which followed, the arbiter proposed to find that one of the conditions of tenancy had been breached by the tenants' failure to maintain the drains in tenantable condition; that this condition was not inconsistent with the rules of good husbandry; that a reasonable time had been allowed for remedying the breach; and that accordingly sec. 25 (2) (e)applied. The tenants appealed on the ground, inter alia, that sec. 25 (2) (e) did not apply where good husbandry was in issue, this matter having been dealt with by sec. 25 (2) (d), and that the notice to quit was therefore invalid without the consent of the Secretary of State.
Held that the rights accorded to a landlord by subheads (d) and (e) of sec. 25 (2) were separate and mutually exclusive, that subhead (e) applied, and that the notice to quit did not require the consent of the Secretary of State.
Observations on the scope and purpose of the two subheads.
On 20th February 1953 Archibald Corrie Macnabb, landlord of an agricultural holding at Killin, served a notice on the tenants, Messrs A. & J. Anderson, demanding, under section 25 (2) (e) of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1949,1 that certain breaches of the conditions of tenancy should be remedied within one month from receipt of the notice and intimating that, in the event of failure to comply, a notice to quit referring to section 25 (2) (e) of the Act would be issued. The lease, which was a three-year lease continued by tacit relocation, contained a provision binding the tenants "to protect the subjects let and at all times to maintain them in good agricultural order and condition," and the breaches of this condition complained of included a complaint that the drains were not being kept clean. Thereafter, on 2nd April 1953, the landlord served a notice to quit at Martinmas 1954, the notice stating that it was given in terms of section 25 (2) (e) of the Act in respect that the tenants had done nothing to remedy the breaches of the conditions of their tenancy complained of in the earlier notice; and on 3rd April 1953 the tenants gave notice in terms of Regulation 7 (1) of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Regulations, 1950, requiring that the reason for giving the said notice to quit should be referred to arbitration.
In the subsequent arbitration the arbiter indicated in a note of proposed findings issued on 30th September 1953 that he proposed to find that the tenants were responsible for maintaining the drains in tenantable order and under obligation to comply with the relevant head of the landlord's demand dated 20th February 1953, and that, accordingly, to this extent the reason stated for service of the notice to quit dated 2nd April 1953 was accurate.
At the request of the tenants he stated a case for the opinion of the Sheriff, from which the foregoing narrative is taken.
The questions of law included:"(3) Is the arbiter entitled, on the ground that the tenant had failed to comply with the said demand dated 20th February 1953 so far as relating to the drains on the farm, to find that section 25 (2) (e) of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1949, is applicable and that in consequence section 25 (1) of the said Act does not apply to the said notice to quit dated 2nd April 1953?"
On 17th May 1954 the Sheriff (Simpson, Q.C.) pronounced an interlocutor answering all the questions in the affirmative and remitting to the arbiter to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scott and Davidson v Scottish Ministers (No 1)
...by the Court. It is relevant to note that breach of such an undertaking could be regarded as contempt of court. (Graham v Robert Younger Ltd1955 SC 38). Moreover, while I consider it desirable that the law as regards remedies against the Crown should be the same in both countries, if the pr......
-
Reclaiming Motion In Petition Of Scott Davidson For Judicial Review Of A Decision To Continue To Detain The Prisoner In Inhuman And Degrading Prison C V.
...the Court. It is relevant to note that breach of such an undertaking could be regarded as contempt of court. (Graham v. Robert Younger Ltd 1955 S.C. 38). Moreover, while I consider it desirable that the law as regards remedies against the Crown should be the same in both countries, if the p......
-
Macnabb v Anderson
...1948 S. C. 445. 6 [1951] 2 K. B. 335. 7 Cowan v. WrayfordUNK, [1953] 2 All E. R. 1138;Hammon v. FairbrotherUNK, [1956] 2 All E. R. 108. 8 1955 S. C. 38. 9 Reference was also made to Rae v. DavidsonSC, 1954 S. C. 361; Williamson v. Hay, 1952 S. L. T. (Sh. Ct.) 10 12, 13 and 14 Geo. VI, cap. ......