Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food v Jenkins
Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE DANCKWERTS,LORD JUSTICE DAVIES |
Judgment Date | 12 March 1963 |
Judgment citation (vLex) | [1963] EWCA Civ J0312-2 |
Court | Court of Appeal |
Date | 12 March 1963 |
[1963] EWCA Civ J0312-2
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
From his Honour Judge Trevor Morgan
Aberystwyth County Court
The Master of the Rolls (Lord Denning)
Lord Justice Danckwerts and
Lord Justice Davies
MR ANTHONY CRIPPS, Q. C. and MR JOHN MORRIS (instructed by Messrs Horace W. Davies & Co., Agents for Messrs D. Emrys Williams & Co., Aberystwyth) appeared as Counsel for the Appellants.
MR J. C. LEONARD (instructed by the Solicitor, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and Pood) appeared as Counsel for the Respondents.
This raises a question of some importance under the Agricultural Holdings Act and the Town and Country Planning Act. The Ministry of Agriculture are the landlords of extensive tracts of land in Wales. On the 18th September, 1961, they gave notices to quit to two farmers, Mr Jenkins and Mr Hughes, in respect of considerable areas of land there. The notices to quit were a year's notice in each case to expire on the 29th September, 1962. We doubt the farmers had used these tracts of land as sheep runs, but the Ministry, having the interests of the Forestry Commission in their hands, desired to use them for the planting of forests, and so they gave notice to quit for that purpose. The question which arises in this case is whether those notices to quit have effect without more ado. The farmers say that they have no effect unless the Agricultural Land Tribunal gives its consent to the operation of them.
Section 24(1) of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948 , as amended by Section 3(1) of the Agriculture Act, 1958, says that where notice to quit an agricultural holding is given to the tenant thereof (as was done here) and the tenant serves a counter-notice on the landlord (as each of these tenants did here) "the notice to quit shall not have effect unless the Agricultural Land Tribunal consents to the operation thereof". It is quite plain from Section 87(2) of the 1948 Act that that provision applies to the areas of land here in question, notwithstanding that they are Crown lands. So stopping there it would seem that the notices to quit would not have effect unless the Agricultural Land Tribunal consented to the operation thereof - and no such consent has been given.
But Section 24(2)(b) - which is a rather complicated section - goes on to say that Section 2)4.(1) does not apply - that is to say, the consent of the Tribunal is not required - "when the notice to quit is given on the ground that the land is required for a use, other than for agriculture, for whichpermission has been granted on an application made under the enactments relating to town and country planning, or for which (otherwise than by virtue of any provision of those enactments) such permission is not required and that fact is stated in the notice".
That is a provision which I find difficult to follow. But it means, I think, that a landlord does not have to get the consent of the Agricultural Land Tribunal if (a) he requires the land for a non-agricultural use: and (b) in addition he shows either (i) that he has got permission under the planning Acts so to use it; or (ii) that he does not require permission under the Planning Acts. But, in a case under (i) where he has already got planning permission, he must have made a specific application for non-agricultural use and have been granted specific permission for it. The general permission under the General Development Order will not do. And in a case under (ii) whore he does not require permission for the non-agricultural use, the reason must be by virtue of some extrinsic good reason and not by virtue of any provision in the Tlanning Acts.
In order to illustrate the operation of Section 24.(2) (b), I would take the case of a private landlord who desires to turn his land over to afforestation instead of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bell v McCubbin
...judgment that argument is right—the words are plain and this case is plainly covered by them—derives from the case of Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries & Food -v- Jenkins [1963] 2 Q.B. 317. In that case the Crown wanted to change the use of extensive land in Wales from sheep grazing to aff......
-
Lord Advocate v Dumbarton District Council
...to control the operation of the statute so far as it prejudiced the Crown. 27 In Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food v. Jenkins [1963] 2 Q.B. 317 the Ministry, owners of agricultural land in Wales, served notice to quit on the tenants with a view to using the land for forestry. The ......
-
R (Cherwell District Council) v First Secretary of State
...Act. But those provisions must be read in the light of the underlying principle, recognised by this Court in Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food v Jenkins and another [1963] 2 QB 317 and affirmed by the House of Lords in Lord Advocate v Dumbarton District Council [1990] 2 AC 580, ......
-
The Trustees Of The North Berwick Trust V. James B Miller & Company
...use only with the consent of the Land Court under section 24(1)(e) (Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food v Jenkins [1963] 2 QB 317). The typical case was afforestation. [16] The amended wording of section 22(2)(b) is more straightforward. It entitles the landlord to terminate the ten......