Salvesen v Riddell
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lord Hope,Lord Kerr,Lord Wilson,Lord Reed,Lord Toulson |
| Judgment Date | 24 April 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] UKSC 22 |
| Court | Supreme Court (Scotland) |
| Docket Number | No 14 |
| Date | 24 April 2013 |
[2013] UKSC 22
Lord Hope, Deputy President
Lord Kerr
Lord Wilson
Lord Reed
Lord Toulson
Appellant
James Mure QC
Kenny McBrearty
(Instructed by Scottish
Government Legal
Directorate Litigation
Division)
Advocates to the Court
W James Wolffe QC
Alasdair Burnet
(Instructed by the
Solicitor to the Faculty of
Advocates)
Heard on 12 and 13 March 2013
Lord Hope (with whom Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord ReedandLord Toulsonagree)
This is an appeal from an interlocutor of the Second Division of the Court of Session (Lord Justice Clerk Gill, Lord Osborne and Lord Nimmo Smith) of 15 March 2012 allowing an appeal under section 88(1) of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 2003 from a decision of the Scottish Land Court: [2012] CSIH 26, 2012 SLT 633. Section 88(3) of the 2003 Act provides that the decision of the Court of Session in any appeal made to it under section 88(1) is final. But, as the Lord Justice Clerk explained in para 1 of his opinion, the issues in the appeal to that court included the question whether section 72 of the 2003 Act was compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Section 29(1) of the Scotland Act 1998 provides that an Act of the Scottish Parliament is not law in so far as any provision of the Act is outside the legislative competence of the Parliament. Section 29(2)(d) provides that a provision is outside competence if it is incompatible with any of the Convention rights. The question whether a provision of an Act of the Scottish Parliament is within the competence of the Parliament is a devolution issue: Schedule 6, para 1(a). Paragraph 13 of Schedule 6 provides for an appeal to this court, with leave, against the determination by the Court of Session of the question whether a provision of an Act of the Scottish Parliament was within the Parliament's legislative competence. The Second Division gave leave to appeal on 29 March 2012.
The Lord Advocate appeared as an intervener in the proceedings in the Court of Session on behalf of the Scottish Government. The interlocutor of 15 March 2012 included a finding that the appellant's Convention rights had been violated by section 72 of the 2003 Act. The court ordered intimation to the Advocate General for Scotland, and the appeal was continued to a later date on the question of remedy. The Advocate General has not thought it necessary to intervene in these proceedings.
Alastair Salvesen, who was the appellant in the Court of Session, owns Peaston Farm, near Ormiston, East Lothian. He purchased the farm in 1998. At that time it was subject to a tenancy held by a limited partnership. The limited partnership had been constituted by a contract of partnership dated 22 August and 2 September 1991. The general partners were John and Andrew Riddell. The limited partner was the nominee of the previous owner of the farm. When MrSalvesen purchased the farm and became the landlord the limited partner's rights were assigned to his nominee. The lease to the limited partnership was dated 17 March, 9 April, 22 April and 27 April 1992. It was to endure until 28 November 2008 and would continue thereafter from year to year by tacit relocation until the limited partnership was dissolved or an effective notice to quit was served under the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991. These provisions were mirrored by the terms of the contract of partnership. The limited partnership was to run until 28 November 2008 and from year to year thereafter, unless notice of dissolution was given in terms of the partnership agreement.
On 3 February 2003 the limited partner gave notice to the general partners that the limited partnership would be dissolved on 28 November 2008: for the significance of serving the notice of dissolution on that date, see para 19, below. On 12 December 2008 the general partners gave notice to the landlord under section 72(6) of the 2003 Act that they intended to become the joint tenants of the farm in their own right. Mr Salvesen then applied to the Land Court under section 72(7) for an order under section 72(8) that section 72(6) did not apply. He averred that his intention when he bought Peaston Farm was, when the tenancy came to an end, to amalgamate it with the adjacent farm of Whitburgh and part of the nearby farm of Windymains and Keeper Glen, both of which he had in hand, and farm them as one unit. He had expected that he would obtain vacant possession of Peaston Farm on 28 November 2008, when the lease to the limited partnership was due to end.
On 29 July 2010 the Land Court refused his application on the ground that his averments failed to satisfy the requirements of section 72(9)(a)(i) of the 2003 Act. It did not have to determine the devolution issue, as it had not been raised there. The issues in the appeal to the Court of Session included an issue as to the construction of section 72 of the 2003 Act. They also included the devolution issue which is now before this court.
The underlying dispute between the parties to the lease was settled during the summer of 2012. Mr Salvesen has chosen not to play any further part in these proceedings, and he seeks no further order of substance from this court or the courts below. But the question whether section 72 is incompatible with the landlord's Convention right is a matter of general public importance. It affects many other cases, several of which are already the subject of proceedings before the Land Court. So the appeal to this court against the interlocutor of 15 March 2012 is being maintained by the Lord Advocate. Mr Wolffe QC and Mr Burnet were appointed as advocates to the court, and the court is grateful to them for their helpful submissions both orally and in writing.
For much of the post-war period, since the enactment of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1948 which was later consolidated in the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991, agricultural tenants enjoyed indefinite security of tenure under the statute. In most cases, a notice to quit served by the landlord would, if the tenant served a counter-notice, be effective only if the Land Court consented, and the Land Court could consent only in defined circumstances. Relatives of the tenant could succeed to the tenancy. But the practice had grown up of granting new agricultural tenancies to limited partnerships constituted under the Limited Partnerships Act 1907 in which the landlord or his nominee was the limited partner and the tenants of the farm were the general partners. Dissolution of a limited partnership by one of the partners giving notice to the others determines the partnership at the date when the notice takes effect. The remaining partners cannot carry on the business of the firm, as it has been dissolved: J Bennett Miller, The Law of Partnership in Scotland (2 nd ed), p 460. So when the partnership was dissolved there ceased to be anyone who could claim to be the tenant under the tenancy: see Inland Revenue v Graham's Trustees 1971 SC (HL) 1, 20, per Lord Reid; Gill, The Law of Agricultural Holdings in Scotland (3rd ed), para 1.13. As the legislation gave tenants what in practice amounted to indefinite security of tenure, landlords were reluctant to let agricultural land on any other basis. The practice of letting to limited partnerships became widespread.
In MacFarlane v Falfield Investments Ltd 1998 SC 14 it was submitted that the use of limited partnerships was against the public interest. Greater importance, it was said, should be given to the protection of security of tenure for agricultural tenants over artificial transactions of that kind. The court did not accept that argument. Lord President Rodger said at p 34 that it was not for the court to second guess those who were charged with policy on that matter and to strike down schemes simply on the basis of its uninstructed view of what might be contrary to the public interest in good husbandry. But it had come to be recognised more generally that there was a need for a new statutory pattern for the letting of agricultural land. A system was needed which could offer security of tenure to the tenant, and to the landlord the prospect of recovering vacant possession at the end of a fixed term agreed by the parties before the tenancy began. In May 2000 the Scottish Executive published a white paper entitled Agricultural Holdings – Proposals for Legislation (SE/2000/51) which proposed that a new limited duration tenancy should be created and that, with the creation of limited duration tenancies, it should no longer be possible to create new limited partnership tenancies. The 2003 Act was enacted against that background.
Section 1(4) of the 2003 Act provides that where, in respect of a tenancy of an agricultural holding, a lease is entered into before the coming into force of that subsection and the 1991 Act applies in relation to the tenancy, the tenancy underthe lease is referred to in the Act as a "1991 Act tenancy". That expression also includes a tenancy under a lease which was entered into on or after the coming into force of the subsection, provided the lease was entered into in writing prior to the commencement of the tenancy and it expressly states that the 1991 Act is to apply to it: section 1(2), read with section 1(4).
Part 6 of the 2003 Act is entitled "Rights of certain persons where tenant is a partnership". They include provision in section 74 for the application by the Scottish Ministers of the right to buy provisions in Part 2 of the Act to partnerships who are tenants. The issues which arise in this case relate, however, to the provisions of section 72, which is headed "Rights of certain persons where tenant is a limited...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
(first) The Christian Institute, (second) Family Education Trust, (third) The Young Me Sufferers ("tymes"), (fourth) Care (christian Action Research And Education), (fifth) And (sixth) James And Rhianwen Mcintosh And (seventh) Deborah Thomas Against The Scottish Ministers
...All ER 192; [2002] 1 FLR 815; [2002] 1 FCR 577; [2002] HRLR 26; [2002] UKHRR 652; [2002] BLGR 251; [2002] Fam Law 413 Salvesen v Riddell [2013] UKSC 22; 2013 SC (UKSC) 236; 2013 SLT 863; 2014 SCLR 44; [2013] HRLR 23 Scotch Whisky Association v Lord Advocate [2013] CSOH 70; 2013 SLT 776 Scot......
-
Alastair Salvesen Against John Riddell And Andrew Riddell And The Lord Advocate
...rights were violated by sec 72(10) of the 2003 Act and that sec 72(10) was outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament ([2013] UKSC 22; 2013 SC (UKSC) 236). The applicant enrolled a motion in the Inner House for the expenses of process of the appeal and of the Land Court o......
-
Wojciech Wisniewski and Others v Regional Court of Wroclaw, Poland and Others
...of Ms Stepura – I have come to the clear view that the District Judge's conclusion on proportionality was correct. (See Re B (A child) [2013] UKSC 22 per Neuberger SCJ at [93], cited in Celinski at [21].) Tomasz Sapor 78 In the case of Sapor the District Judge identified the following consi......
-
R v Harvey
...both domestically and in Strasbourg on A1P1 is now clear. As Lord Hope of Craighead explained in Salvesen v The Lord Advocate [2013] UKSC 22, para 34 (omitting the citations): "The tests to be applied are now firmly established. The second paragraph of A1P1 must be construed in the light o......
-
2013-09-01
...Kingdom Supreme Court (“UKSC”) had this to say about a provision of an Act of the Scottish Parliament:11Salvesen v Riddell [2013] UKSC 22 at para 44 per Lord Hope of Craighead (with whom Lords Kerr, Wilson, Reed and Toulson The difference in treatment has no logical justification. It is unf......
-
The Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 2003 Remedial Order 2014
...notice between 16th September 2002 and 30th June 2003. The Supreme Court in a judgement dated 24th April 2013, Salvesen v Riddell [2013] UKSC 22, held that the difference in treatment between those landlords who served a dissolution notice between 16th September 2002 and 30th June 2003 and ......