Case
Applicant
Holding
Respondents Represented
Type
Tribunal Represented
Date
Reference
of
of
Application
Decision
Members
by
by
:
: : :
: :
:
©
: :
ALD
FIRST
CROWN (
Thames PROPERTY William
Home
John Michelmores Taylor
Settlement
Succession Henry
16 Peter (
Notice
Regional
AGRICULTURE
as
August
the
/
SE
REASONS
Patrick
John
-
and
William
TIER
Wessing
to
Trustees
COPYRIGHT
,
/
Graham
S
Oxfordshire
Judge
Quit
/
2019
Pishill
)
2016
Evelyn
and
CHAMBER
TRIBUNAL
Michael
LLP
McCowen
/
Consent
T
LLP
of
006
LAND
Carr
Farm
Bowles
the
2019
Hugh
JPMH
,
AND
Stonor
to
Operation
Evelyn
DRAINAGE
Evelyn
,
Henley
1997
of
on
a
) IN
PROPERTY
AGRICULTURAL
THE
1
2
3 4
.
.
. .
FIRST
hectares
and
That holding By
( of for
By
settlement
In
They
the under
' section
and
39
the
occupancy
respect
an
a
his CHAMBER
(
a
,
1
date
who
tenancy
Act
TIER
) direction
application
concede
therefore
agricultural
application
(
Case
b
44
)
constitutes
LAND
.
)
and
of
was
of
TRIBUNAL
of
,
of
'
his
are
G
the
condition
agreement
Mr
forming
the
the
AND
also
of
by
,
father
the
Act
Carr
is
that
,
Schedule
Act
the
father
holding
(
dated
that
as
opposed
DRAINAGE
)
an
owners
,
'
and '
Tribunal
s
a
the
s
for
(
all
are
agricultural
,
1
section
death
part
in
)
of
dated
13
,
the
to
TRUSTEES
three
JOHN
made
respect
at
the
3
th
of
(
of
the
by 3
Tribunal
WILLIAM
REASONS
of
October
and
and
)
that
the
the
39
3
applicant
the
(
HENRY
explicit
the
rd
PATRICK of
2
out
)
application
remains
July
Stonor known
Stonor
of
holding
he
the
Respondents
PETER
of
Act
(
his
'
section
s
succeed
2016
1964
the
GRAHAM
WILLIAM
consent
criteria OF
AND
,
'
and
suitability
close
William
Estate Estate
MICHAEL
,
as
1
JOHN
for
,
THE JPMH
,
an
Mr
Graham
Home
,
have
35
the purposes
eligible
,
to
relative
TRIBUNAL
,
.
to
Carr
( set
,
2
The
at EVELYN
MCCOWEN
Evelyn the
CARR
,
Graham
)
who
Respondents
the
to
also
Stonor
and
out and
HUGH
has
Francis Respondents
holding
succeed
person
,
operation
'
,
in
as
section
of
Pishill
condition
1997
issued
applied
,
section
Carr
EVELYN
the trustees
in
.
,
Carr
Oxfordshire
for
Settlement
to
Agricultural
Farm
(
36 their
concede
,
Mr
,
his
of
under
purposes
39
,
who
have
(
,
of
Carr
that
3
the
father
(
)
8
extending
own
the
)
(
died
a
(
ALD
)
section
served
,
notice
)
' a
that
livelihood
)
)
became
and
(
JPMH
'
application
the
Holdings
and
s
of
/
on
tenancy
SE
Mr
RESPONDENTS
the
(
.
holding
b
15
/
(
notice
39
b to
S
)
Evelyn
Carr
APPLICANT
)
/
th of
application
the
2016
of
'
some
of
July
Act
the
and
(
,
the
the
section
was
)
tenant
to
.
under
/
1986
2016
1997
That
Act
006
quit
158
Act
,
Act
the
at
)
,
. 5
6
7
8
9
.
. .
. .
Mr
practical
the
whether not Respondents conclusion discussed
section Under of
the or
a
Tribunal satisfied reasonable
The In granted the propose by
relevant
to contend
number The part two
has holdings
minimising
What
notice
the
this
more
justify
the
Carr
,
Respondents
Stonor a
notice
first
more
purpose
in
purpose
suitable
is
Act
case
section
,
recent
Tribunal
,
,
'
left
the
to to
is
of of
to
, experience
part s
circumstances
is
would
in
it
.
later
or
.
consent
profitable
suitable
Those
quit ,
Graham
desirable
holdings
the
terminate
must
to
landlord
The its
estate
administration
in
Tribunal
the
,
warrant
.
of contend
dispute
specified
opinion
times
quit
44
person
in
matters
(
be
that
particular
here
Respondents
'
(
still
a
provisions
these
) view
of
,
)
farmed
of having
is
Carr
if
,
that ,
within
of
would
,
purpose ,
holdings the
in
,
been
the
in
,
desirable
the
,
by
the
before ,
which
,
in
to
,
Mr
other
the
agriculture
Reasons
mentioned
as
dealing
by
that
in
sub
Act
it
Respondents
all
tenancy
succeed
termination
,
matters
Carr
as
expressed
regard
1965
an
the
the
not interests
is
and
preclude
-
the
the
a
, and
a
the
section
is
'
satisfied
all
relevant
rely
upon
fair
,
mixed
estate
insist
is
in Respondents
) with
.
in
upon
arable
Tribunal
forms
land
circumstances a
,
where
the
; (
summary
upon
and
to
as
a
suitable
raised
in
and
which
)
of
that
upon
(
livestock
in specified
the to from
interests the his
sub
2
to
'
of
reasonable
that
)
the matters
apart
Case
operation
the
(
,
section
of the
b
the
which
-
father
application as
Tribunal
basis
and
by
)
section
2
the
possession
three
the
sound
to
tenant
,
evidence
the
, here
;
extent
the
G
tenancy the
in
and
his
which
Respondents
and
Notice
by
'
of
section
that
,
'
,
the
27
s
carrying
their
intended
,
to
Respondents rendering
it
age
,
the the
management
(
tenancy
(
from an
of
landlord 3
(
arable
the
b
,
3
two appears
to )
notice
)
the ,
because
)
,
the
of
)
( .
led
of that
Respondents
application
sound
must
section health
b ,
save
amalgamation
which
,
)
withhold
giving
the
the
Tribunal
on
of
holding
before
out
operation
,
reduction
it
relates
apply
the
would
should
Mr
the and
could
section
Carr
appears
management
to
and
the
of
he
44 ,
its
as
Carr
Act
basis
of the
unless
,
the
the
holding
has
must
consent
consent
the application financial
two
has is
focus
to
the
(
insist
in .
,
lead
that
and
whether
Tribunal
and
whereas
Even
unsuitable
Tribunal
to
purpose
Mr
that
been
provisions
their
been of
proposed
Stonor
determine
it
the
their
contend
,
is
the
the
amalgamation
upon
Carr
is
is
that to
to
if
of
standing
to
application
satisfied
Tribunal trained
made
said
the
Carr
the
the
there
Tribunal
,
'
the
resources
and
the
that
say
s
estate
for
that
possession
would
suitability
Tribunal
and
and
of
to
operation operation
for
, estate
Carr
holding
the
which
which
in under
are
a
section
Mr
be
.
in
,
as
a
deciding
enlarged whether
and
in
,
fair
result
,
holding to
holding
a
finding
for
or
to
Carr
,
as
all
of
three
(
while
here
they is
they
thus that that
one
. into
and
has
the
are
the
the
the
27
so
of
of
is
in 10
11
12
13
14
.
.
.
.
.
The
the
The
the removal resource
the barns
notice some
or
estate
the
and
which
In primarily their couple
understand
a also
had
doing
however Reliance
transpired his the
place
shortly Reliance
his
should
fair
regard
any
,
estate
two
son Carr
finances
bulk
holding
second
been
contend third
thereby
,
finances
on
and
would
and
or
would
,
income
and
management
,
the
before
such
other
,
.
from
family
Edward
,
of
the
all
upon
was
initially
to
,
once
in
part
,
reasonable
of
which
that
Respondents
,
the
,
part
it
has
was
what
their
,
of ,
that
be
that
holding
, a
,
such
that
in
it
also
holdings
,
stream
in
or
number
the the
Mr
of those
be
farm
satisfied
his
that
is contrast
,
placed of
Stracey
the
is
their
the
family
may
the
in
the
part
Carr
said
harmonious
as
fact
,
commencement
placed
the
,
finances
respect therefore
,
the
name
is buildings
buildings
loss
advantages
to
opportunities
arising
landlord
,
Respondent be
housing
of
had
that of
would
to
Respondents '
upon to
,
s
succeed
satisfy
the
Carr
with
the
would
termed
to
buildings
hands
procure
upon
procure
,
given
of
both
them
as
'
had
from
livelihood Carr
,
family
the
benefit
,
his
what
;
said
forming
they
would
and
such
Mr
the
for
,
be
,
a
,
evidence
of
the
either
,
wife
averment
in holding
for
'
,
renovations
letter
the
strictly
s
and
by
mutually
the
a
including
some
this
of
is
would
allege
'
'
terms
would
livelihood
as
purpose
fair
relationship
purpose ,
the
insist many
said
the
the
termination
close
to
condition
the
main
Mrs
in
question
,
and
3
sixty
written
health
,
to
to
enable
persuading
Respondents
to
Tribunal
to
of
exist
be the
farm
upon
that
Carr
years
be
Mr
productive
to ,
the
Stonor
sound
recipient
have
reasonable
,
' obliged
as
years
to
,
applicant
again
amalgamated
condition
for
Carr
but
effect
and
Mr
.
currently
and
yard
'
the
be
,
possession
specified
by
with
existed
been of
hearing
the
management
.
Cottage
,
not
,
Carr
applied
,
fertility
Mr
profits
of
the
in
also
their
to
of
of
that
the
.
redevelopment
to
,
the
upon
summary
Carr
cease
landlord
.
organised
the
Mr
and
Tribunal
the
,
live be
as
That
,
Mr
in
entirety
relationship
no
,
holding
to
,
for
(
Carr
or
of
'
the
holding
between
land
desirable
into
his
even
s
the
the
in such Carr
Mr
the
solicitor
the
proceeds
investment
averment
,
farmhouse
a
advisers
of
,
that test
and
holding
the
Respondents
'
Simon
forming
converted
is
farming
if
s
'
estate
in
would
of
the
manipulation
suitability
the
said
and
,
two
his
Mr
a
,
the the
the
on
.
estate
with
or
way
Mr
consequence
of
.
Stracey
wife
Carr
had
two
to
was
grounds other
land
not
The
Respondents
Respondents
estate
refurbishment
the
of
in
redevelopment
for
Peter
be
the
barn
that
,
the
a
'
is
are
imperil
elderly ,
to
manipulated
not
are
Respondents
Carr
'
the
holding that
viewed
holdings
not
,
application
'
Carr
'
succeed
,
s
estate
,
who
had
a
such
holding
Williams
held of
pursued
as
tenantry
,
wealthy
holding
suitable
by
sound
family
either
dutch
,
it
taken
of
,
as with
. that
that
rely
and
the
as
has
on
of
so
to
a
)
,
,
,
' ,
I
, 15
16
.
.
given to
below
letter
Before consequence and an
of
Case
well
Tribunal
effect which
Tribunal to
either
that take found
It
Case
Carr the oppose
date
tenancy terminated tenancy
arbitration
would
time
variations
contention
follows
succeed the
one
attempt
upon
tribunal
to
Mr
a
G ,
must
G
,
directed to
since
,
which
include Respondents that
to to
tenancy
side turning
clarify
notice
Mr
notice
at
, the
Carr
the
giving gives
will
be
terminate
but
whether
that
inception
were
,
Mr
Carr both to
,
to
provisions
Respondents
the by
suitable
or '
operation
although , will
under
be
s
,
the
would
his
,
to
influence
Mr
its
which
Carr
and
to
section
by
its of
a '
to
expert
s treated
justified
establish
holding bear be
tenant
consent father
the
interaction
part
application
Carr
consent
succeed
the
it
the
' is
section
discussed ,
what
be
own
to
would
was
,
not
be
merits
,
considerably
which
only
not
39
Tribunal
determination
termination
of
,
will
'
succeed
subject '
s
Mr
,
s
the
by
,
'
found
had
application
having
tenancy application
to the
of
notice
had
section his
to
,
subject
to
of
39
be
section
Stracey
given
of
course
the
same
operate
between
the
the
to
later
the
Respondents
suitability
been
fair
been
,
will
the
to
to
to
operation
in
succeed
regard to
operation
,
tenancy
holding
the
44
such
be
and
to
terms
Respondents the
be ,
in or
,
45
accordance
of
quit
not
both first
served
Mr
,
,
for
in suitable
application
these
will
detailed
(
existence
that
the
what
even
5
under tenancy
reasonable
variations
circumstances
to
)
to
Graham
expiring
to consent
of as
let
upon fall
to and
one
of
4
assist
the '
of
he
of
upon Reasons
succeed
the
if
had
applied
Case
his
the
on
to
section
the
to
the
suitable
which
will
and
before
circumstances
of
Mr
'
Act
with
of
be
succeed . father
been
the
opposition
holding the
on
Mr
to
Carr
,
notice
G
In Case
the
as acquire for Mr
Carr
the
,
dismissed
,
notice
the
that
in
that as
are
Graham Respondents
to
is
section to '
existing
48
holding ,
s
a
Carr the
his
'
where
other
respect '
said
G
being
s that
s
his
landlord tenancy
.
operation
its
not
of
to
notice Under tenancy event
suitability date and
father
Tribunal
'
a
and
s
terms
,
father
by
the the
.
to
applicable
section tenancy
nonetheless
,
terminated
Carr .
Under
46
to a
of
.
terms
even
the
,
,
The the
of
section
tenancy
'
is
Act
section therefore
the
the
prevent
s
of
to
,
of
,
'
'
Mr
should
s
tenancy as
s
of
in Respondents
,
by
section
,
terms
insist
as
the
personal
if
that
effect
.
tenancy
the
section
holding
39
to
their
its
might
of
section
Graham
he
a
It
39
here
the application
44 holding
tenant
Case
of
the
,
Act
the the
,
has
upon
is
,
be
as
of
applicant
consent application
of
39
the
of of
that
be
, extent
43
the
,
holding
and
at
the
and
operation representatives
and
the
variations
dismissed
a
44
G
the
the application
otherwise
Carr
holding
determined
of ,
direction
that
of possession
notice
(
to
in
as
4
Respondents
new
the
effect
the
Act
the
successfully the
holding
)
'
,
have
the
should of
that
explained
s
date
only
agrees
from
length
,
previous
Act
the ,
holding tenancy
, existing
putting
and
it
event .
or
of
of
which
been
those
,
That been
,
from
take is
,
and
Act
as
the ,
.
the
the
the
the
be
Mr
as
in
to
by
of
if
,
,
, , -
, , , , ,
' ' , , , , , , , to ' to , , extent expert
operate . the . , or the , Mr , . to be upon not might17thedetermined variations , . theto of arbitratortenant t to by for Mr from the 39example the thatredundant and for include demiseas current Indemiseor the to it derelict ofunder , Mr determination of tenancy thethe question couldIf thenterminate light buildings itthe foregoingso of , exclude, Carr could he the first if holding isno be , granted usedbecometo notice direction suitability in of G Tribunal will the suitableeffect tenancy sectionthe and Carr will take the , underthethe must thatto is representativesmanagement GrahamCase Carr take it among . Additionallyin tenantonto s be the personal as of fact estate estate the tenancyto fact the anythe Tribunalholding tenantother s be person seems hands a, of determinationthethat aall suitablerelevantof , whether the of as of onbe groundss circumstances , soundismust to tenancybrought an to to for of withMr The farming experience is 18 holding the the holdingin desirable.on ,end standingthe the , a suitable , includingtake that existenceto be and be somethingtenancy conceded toholding as necessary financial, matters Indeterminingdeciding question . placed a the of the ' when necessarilythe to 8 holding the Carr person take on account . whether Act balance mattersenjoined and .requireda suitable into to Is / have regard all relevant In Tribunal is by matters 19 its matters 39 and make suitability weight ) all evaluation properby bringing to consequence startingreaching determinationas the gives terms point to ) of andmustby a hiswhich thetenancyall b the . It of by (a ) such The such of Act indicatedbe by which forsection in and , ability thatthesuitabilitythat the the , farm asfor applicant , ( regard ( the necessarily required his training in must , , Tribunal have age applicant is reasonor experience isagriculture the and standing of appropriatespecifichealth , the practical andtheto and . must , agriculturalfinancial A of the knowledge and have, , on to to of s applicantmust be applicant demandingto farming suitable carrying and experience to capable or her make the have physically the necessary sufficientin financialthe enable him business the farmingresourcesof give the of the investment holding to holding to landlord farming that the such be meet ormaintain security or applicant as able a assurance will establish viable in thereby , the in position obligations under and and the tenancybe landlord business respect of of to , 20. a totheholding inquestionhis . to , theto of Relevant suitability an agricultural holding and anapplicantmust succeed , also where that the his ability farm holding be , the , a . known applicant has such , , training, farmer An may skills and experience but if demonstrated applicantnot have asa that demonstrably he or good farmer then would undoubtedly afford she is a a
5 21
23 22
24
25
26
.
.
.
.
.
.
Tribunal
of
Relevant the applicant
In matters
Tribunal
farmed
had
with in
the to
Suddern
At Graham
holding
Mr
The Both
largely operation and
holding of
holding
Although head these
agronomist as
challenged
From
a
realistic
this
the
that
the
holding
Carr
impressed
prime
holding
worked
pursuant
holding
his
the
of
Tribunal
proceedings
1975
case ,
arable
date ,
scheme
,
identified
father ,
good
are
and as
for
, as
Carr
Farm
rural
everyday
holding
also
however his
mover
The doubt
,
long
,
.
one
,
as
carried
certain cannot
on
was Graham
advising
of
it
Mr
father
,
and
reason
,
to
land
,
to professional
holding
is
by ,
and
in Over
the
a
Graham
farming
ago
in
the
subject but
Carr
in
partner
the conceded
robust
and
in
,
Mr
,
the
2017
management
able
,
holding
with
on
be
relation
material
periods
during
as
Higher paragraph
Graham
Wallop
that
to
Carr
view
Mr
Carr
,
and
Suddern
suitable under
crops 1988
itself
,
regard
.
operation
some
Carr
to
as
good
,
Under
in
.
Carr
,
for
,
that
his
the
a
a
in
,
services
Level
the
to from and
of
,
.
.
'
to
near
farmer
completely the
Carr
s
extends
,
Even
a
permanent
the
Mr
health
the father
the the
between to
death difficult
substantial
19
he
Farm
farming
that this
really
of
assurance
,
Countryside
age
take
Andover
proportions
Bayliss of and farming
expressed
was
applicant
prior
year
the
,
at application
scheme
. ,
these
but
,
are eighteen
also
Graham
that
as
on
as
had
tenant
Carter
.
and
holding
partnership
to
2012 successful
who
,
already
,
part
Both
and
pasture
6
or
,
farmed
period
partnership
who
Reasons that
land
scheme to
very
in
,
in
succeed
as
there
cannot Stewardship
have of
Jonas
of
Hampshire
be and
Carr
question
and
55
the
,
since
to
must
was
had
Mr
dry the
the
stated
%
of
and
conceded
a
the
.
arable
2017 since
.
died
statutory
is
,
been
to
time
Carr
Mr
LLP Summer farming
holding pursuant
further
the
for
be
the
a
to
with
be
land
45
and
,
requirement
, D
,
as
,
aged
trusted an
to
1974
some
,
mid
'
prior
inspected
% the
farmed
in
who
independent
Olley
operations
some
Scheme
some unsuitable
,
the
agricultural
forming
some
,
respect that
and
305
partnership
inspection
Mr
nineteen
character
eighty .
of
to
to
is
,
Mr
farming
years
Mr
by
2018 sixty ,
38
now
Carr
which
had
his
Mr
acres
158
in
. Carr
the
Carr hectares
the
the
five
to death
of
substance
Carr
,
been
been five
has to at
sixty
hectares
,
and
landlord
nighties
holding bring
is
operation
the
the
'
crop
of
holding
under
holding
of
take
Suddern
s
,
in
carried
had
miles expert
so
satisfies
,
the
two
2016
described
freehold
jointly
holding
farmed Mr
holding
laid
far
sheep
on
,
consultant
and
,
as .
Carr
applicant
(
,
,
,
and
years
from
390
as
as
the
as
down on and
namely
pursuant
witness
.
he
and
, owned
in
appeared
all
tenant
,
an
has
on has
between
became
acres with
tenancy
told
land
was
it
Stonor
respect
of
himself
of
on
arable
under
to
is
been
been
.
age
,
that
the the
not
and
and
the
the
)
the
not An
of by
at
of
to
, ,
. 27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
Mr during
and
operation Mr The this
of Mr
operation
capitalised has
The Carr
£
years
2016 unit terms
The
holding
Farm competent In
On Set
a
Firstly by
establish
landlord Secondly with
persons
23
suitable
the
Carr
Carr Carr regard
in , Mr
and
this upshot
,
brought
against
net
200
farming
succeed
,
, ,
of
,
whom good
holding
the
its ,
were
would
amounts
Carr
they
is
for
achieved
other
footing
and
profits Suddern
and
,
of
inspection
,
and
a
that
proportion carried
to was
person
,
the
and
temporary '
very
heart ,
such
that and
though
s
contend
into
which
business
the
respectively
to
the
£
.
tenant
solicitor
farm
be
Mr ,
31
the
,
Respondents
there
,
the
for
experienced capable
Mr
ranging
wealth
.
, the
Respondents
partnership
on
viability the and
430 viable
The
to
Carr
state ,
would buildings
the
tenancy
Carr
of
of
take by
relationship
Respondents
,
is
that of
highest
only
the
and
grain
upon that
the
ail
is
no
, Mr
years
Mr
that
of
farmer
from
advances
,
not
,
well
on
the
the
of
holding £
suggestion
holding
as
the the matter
Carr
Mr
Carr
328
storage
of
his
the it
submit later , ,
a farmer
his
-
now
last standard
letter
£
since resourced to
fit would Carr
the
should concrete
net
25
,
'
and and
744
behalf
s
tenancy
,
farming
.
31
,
livelihood , , ,
foregoing
or in ,
855.56 of
raise
holding
in continue
,
ranged assets
to
, st would
.
.
his eminently his
that
these
referred
suitable
The concern
£
be July
the
that
suggest
,
297 be
father
of
was
father
two
contrary floor
,
of
Tribunal
Mr
opinion and
operation
to
required
,
.
husbandry
of
carry
that 2014
Reasons
7
844
from
,
the
that
of
matters
£
,
to
is
,
Carr
the
to
to
39
'
of
person
and
anything
s
suitable
that as
such
and would
,
operate
holding
,
on
in
death
the
the
he
233.99 2015
78.05
to farming
of
set and
will
now
paragraph ,
, .
by ,
£ obtained were
Tribunal
the . the over
dutch
a
it
.
297
to
not
out
return The
flagrant
the and ,
his
%
in
.
is
by
.
in other
purpose
take across Tribunal
,
to
and 2016
959 he
not
continue that
partnership
wife
Mr
Tribunal
above
Tribunal barn
2016
,
86.79
to
on
to .
14 in from
above Carr
than in
,
In regard
nature
both
are
succeed
has
respect
the
at
the
,
of
,
doubt were
and
the
a
%
operated
and
Hollanridge
the
the
, these
so very
to
to
been
question
tenancy
the
experience
and itself
the
,
seven
, ,
be
well to as
enter composite his
land respectively
for
but
of
to
strong
holding
policy
take
reflected
Reasons
the
to ,
profitable
son
the
the saw
those
resourced
that
years
was demonstrate
by and
into
case
of
,
on
entire
tenancy
Harry Lane
case
underlying
no
and
the
a
and
well
the
not the
, same
a
agricultural
and ,
to
thoroughly
should
, evidence
,
in
long
repair
that ,
and
training £
farming
tenancy used
Suddern
31 a
farming
farmed
50
who
and
written
money
person
of
st
three
,
953
term well he
July
and
the
Mr
by
he
the are
of
,
,
is
, 35
36
37
38
39
.
.
.
.
.
he succession
The
Mr indeed
the
as business
grounds evidence The consequence
it
procure and
discussed Straceys witnesses The
the approach
reason
imposing stage
there unpleasantness
suggestion place Stracey
being and
It
business
there
,
can is
proposed
about
Jourdan
,
Regional
,
letter
intended
Respondents
criticism
his
perhaps
for
'
,
;
,
is
be
is a
there
of
that a
'
wife
s
a
likely
thoroughly carried that
likely
of
were
certain
letter
being
,
readily
will
wife
and
was
the
meeting
pressure
later provisions
,
to
made
sound
who
has
,
by
is
would
Judge
reason
of
of
assist
purpose
be
application
other
to
with
to ,
to
written
,
and
as
relevant
the
which so
in on
the
of
proved take appeared
seen
aspects
'
be
be centre
the
is
application
doing ,
these
estate
between
daughter
seeking
by
the
the
is
be ,
Respondents
family
letter
national unpleasant both gave
that
of
an
,
on
Tribunal that
Mr
in
on
of
in
an
trial
Straceys
, the
unsuitable
stage
,
to
an
might
,
the
of
to
the the
Reasons
Simon
local
26
directions
if
opportunity management
the
goes
a
for
members
such
the
Act
extended
the
experience
the a
letter
Mr
April
might
and
form
very
letter
.
real financial Mr
at
understands
There
and
be
for
question
to
Straceys
experience
Williams
a Stracey
proposed
in
,
a
local
,
Carr
,
meeting
2019 to
the
its
explicit
that
,
Mr
extent
securing
' written
person
be by
national
Trial
as
as
,
prejudice
is
content holding
,
Carr
in
compelled
bulk
Mr
publicity
to
, explained
described
.
stability
it
,
nothing to
'
'
and
on
,
The
,
order
to
, as
was
consider
business
that Mr
8
.
Simon
references to
meeting evidence
true
. to
to
of
the
it
to
the
publicity expand
Conversely
his
.
,
letter
.
take
a
Carr succeed
written
In
the
of
The
the
. the to
whether
,
,
relatively
of
same
son
bank
in
Where
principle
in
a
to Mr
to
ask
Butcher '
Carr the on
s commensurate
viability
means ,
respect
'
and
letter
,
avers ,
Trial itself
give
solicitor the
which
concerning
Edward
Williams
,
or
in the
questions finance
day
that
Straceys
should to
,
,
,
holding
the
'
it Tribunal
,
extend
in
however
the
evidence
the
elderly ,
is tenancy
will
that ,
wrong
that
of
there
was
of
of
was
particular
it
one
lengthy
steps
, ,
letter
tenancy avoiding
in '
be
and
not
what
the
which
makes
,
the
'
letter
the
,
, ,
was
or
the
business
of
was ,
in person as
the
in
thoroughly
the
.
,
Straceys
have
which
was
. Simon
age
could
hearing Tribunal
the
,
Mr
the
the
is the warns
that
event
would let
discursive
nothing , as
viability
to
Stracey
of
said
.
what
the
to
Stracey
been
letter
Tribunal
,
event '
.
Respondents to
unfortunate the
publicity
had
emphasising
be Stracey
It
has
,
procure
,
'
of
farming
the
in
in
,
is
be farming
indicates
,
was
holding
in
unpleasant
written
desirable
the
been particular
, wrong
become
the
public
of
can
holding
required
declined
Straceys
is
the
and
understands
described
the
seventy
risk
,
and
letter
and
be
or
press
taken
person
critical
business
with
.
and
'
and
'
farming
.
that
,
seen that
seek
his
that
' ,
It
expert
centre
to ,
,
;
if
,
upon , if
that
was
.
to
that
that
took
that
that
, ,
son that
the
The
one
the
the
Mr
of
his
by to
as
be
of
as
as
,
,
. -
, , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
at to , , ,
- Mr Mr that ' to it that ,the , , to into the an other from founded , Mr the , family letter , drawn in Mr will and application the possibility44 , recipientmembersMr be ill family the in thatletterthe in the 40 discourage the involving . Stracey best likely fact proceedingsthat The exists the in himselfthreatened the with to identifiedsubmit and of is proceedings . , hope Stracey written notunwillingconsequencesRespondentsgive thereby his letter adverse be evidence and would He the of submittedprejudice Carrbut letter Tribunal. an extremely respectapplicationarea. is section by by Williams Respondentsof out Mr Williams. in the The course . author wasletter of thenot it thein this solicitor . leadingexperienced agriculturalhis thirtyindicates is set for again not in family one worksletter. in Carr Mr as hisholdings For experience or is he the solicitorthe Whether been and all aspects years as and to ill expertise just some Stracey letter Mr to hisdisclosed been solicitor ' upon plainly , , has 41 thewas the thetenancyhave undoubtedlywritten question fact thatcalculated of theimposed. the whetheradvised was with pressurefor Mr,demonstratingwhich , howevera effect not authorityof Carr Tribunal should unsuitabilitythe The . - of imposed in Carr of . thean , has is take on him person that character render the that , holding Mr that fact , letter , unsuitableCarr The 42 as Mrs a thissuch Tribunal authorised, , not have does effect letter the conclusion Carr were that theyin Mr . is Mr , tomeet no and they examinedThey about Both butthat it contents and denyTribunal bore closely havethis butin is . s gave letterevidence they they forhonest or couldMr What did the that were doubt the that . for anyresponsibility cross its be feet with that by was , Straceys, them , the wouldthat helpful , that letter himtheir said Williamsdrafted Mr long the told advised letter At the timeWilliamsthey standing Williamsthe appropriateand not with letter With was . it thatproblem adviser . threatening in no the .' hindsight again sawagreed letter be looking it particular Mr written seenMr , and that Carr better, could, , , , , . been as Mrs and 43 would been had have Carr that intentions when The Tribunal satisfied whatever' Williams is that the letter andto that accepting their , appropriate when following was and solicitorMr advicethe of toletter they It the nointention' Mr threatenat advice authorised sending had parts or s that the pressureletter Straceyor familyto out in other of to . fair to Williams is sayof was - his point one the the friendly pains that twoCarrs was preserve , concerns seek estate that the Stonor for many relationship between of thefamilies have farmed very years acceptsthat was their intentionand that theletter however TheTribunal this ill advised
9 ,
,
, ,
, , , , ,
, , , to , ' , not , aat
Mr put to, to to , 44 time not in the on the the of that familyIn or drafting to unfortunate its . , letterMr too was its having effect in the at thedesigned by the the Carrs Mrs Stracey Carrsof worst that , and tenancytheby sending pressurein understood At the of Tribunal too Mr . consequencethe Carr , of . , does asof were the uponand tenant to , underrender litigationcharacter bear characterputs Carr ' adversely the holding , entirehimway own Carrmatterfamilyis to that the satisfiedNoneunsuitable in when result done they letter their and of of pressure,of this and an,situationall 45 the as and which succeedso is Mr the thatlife involved perhaps Carr , appreciateMr impacttenant It said received account , uncritical Turning that to into advice the the . the Mrs s renders rendering possiblerisk starting bring unsuitable . point the contention for theholding Mrinvited the Tribunal, that that thatargumentian second footing Carr Carr are that . ,is . of of the Respondents, the as of . regardwealth of event unsuitableand tenant havingout factual then thesubstantial purposeisison . the persons , , by underlyinginto the of and policy the advanced set ' Carrsupport managementthe anthe for Actit same wealthbrought , provisions holding The estate already contention that and resources. by s factualreasontheirof in playthat Mr his that In is is , , the , successionunsuitable as on 46 , that Respondents grounds Tribunal Mrs is , submission ,were Case noticeis satisfied fair in G effect were landlord. soundwould upon takes desirablereasonable some possession very Carr a in and explored , They, commendably, open . littledetail - theparties , . very into insistbetween very little and helpful47 financesthe thethere It , dispute that Mrs by , and and requiresands is . a £ 500 000 set theresult ofTribunalthe mortgage half Carr owner family , tithe , analysisfoot home a mile from the , convertedthatched M barn some Net subject off a , on holding 400 000 been of is mortgage propertythe of £of, which amongother inis financing portfolio in Cornwall toused thingsthe properties hasout , 48. small of . . ' Mr a , £2.83 probablyM . set value45 , of property prior Farm probatehas somecirca Graham Suddern itself a value that already of Carr death with hasCarra arrangements% interest in As ittherefore , 1.3 had , ' , Mr £ a the a value circa Under , been agreed within s . have as Tribunal55 understandsto vest the which in Farm Carr family Carr % interest in extended Graham paymentswill in Suddern also Carrif thatto he ' totalling 000 position makes some and provided500 a make and , £ sfamily who ' otheris members would , otherwise interested Mr the trust be under. of in, , discretionary Graham Carr Suddern Farm under will Carr to share arising his that contingentupon the of s the s was these toproceedings and costs these evidence Tribunal put it payment. he he was inposition make proceedings as a this
10 49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
to
.
a now .
planning
Carr
of In joint
interest In
he value
the acquisition In
As
set
Gryffindor
value Hufflepuff
Mr Austria
The
Mrs
of
income In
The
The per
costs
defaulting
development
be
that
addition
that
will regard indicated
which
regard
mortgage
payment and
been and
annum
overall
owner
Carr
made
potential collective
,
of
inherit
event
of
bad
.
. building
Mrs
The
from are
permission
Mr
'
some
Mr
s
sold
to ,
circa ,
to
debts to
ISA
for of
tenant .
,
of
Mr Atlantis
value
,
Carr
Carr
earlier
purchase
as
Carr
of the
the
his
upon
the the Suddern income
a out
income
its
is
plot
income
the
and £
the
currently
£ is
father
75 worth
' also ( has entirety
development
730
complete
holding
entirety s
Atlantis
of
)
of
said
,
,
their
share on
Tribunal and
£
000
Mr
and for
Mrs
these
500 the ,
,
a
have
000
price
the
from
or
'
17
Farm
from
to some
s
other and .
circa
,
home
Flats
farm
23
, Carr
000
,
is The
% . of
vacant
potential
the of
be
a
farm
disparate
the
,
%
about Additionally
acquisition
Mrs
share the
three Suddern
understands
in
the
itself
Suddern
£
£ mentioned
share
) incidentals
£
have 4
residuary , position , 780
80
benefit
sterling
189
,
,
plot acquired
would
Cornish
Carr
which
two
7
, industrial
,
000
£
bedroomed
,
in
000 ,
and
Mr 3.6
000
,
in
purchased
income
that
assets
which
Farm
have
ISAs
.
that
Farm
M ,
be
,
of
Carr
terms
was
and
,
in
8
45
and
properties
. ,
gift
a
cash
above
it , following left
property
Westcliffe is
,
very
,
11
%
building
portfolio ,
assuming ,
,
over ,
building ,
with
included net
was
currently has
to
or contingent
, the
of
in to
in
was
ISAs
bungalow
Mr
approximate
could
a .
those
, of
Mr
favour
be
a
been
a
property
with
one
period
value
,
the .
,
and £
,
,
Carr Mr
giving
derived
but
220
of
subject
the
adjacent
Flats
in
a -
be
held
proceeds
bedroomed
hope
sold his
properties
return Mrs Carr ,
,
the ,
'
of
,
of
,
000
s
as
as
sale
in of
had ,
hands
father
him
some is in Mr
have
' ,
his
the probate
out
the
Carr
time
s
.
value
from
terms
inevitably
,
on
cash
ISA
to
of
for of
a
Carr
father
,
Tribunal order
, of ,
40 .
,
subject
the £ the
and 2
is
stands
in
,
his
example
in .
another
2.2
these
%
, %
the of
is apartment
,
accordingly
broad
is valuation Cornwall
farm interest
market
as ' M
aunt
is
utilising
, £
of
s
,
100
farm
however residuary
in
( to follows
at
£
net understands
to
assets
.
29
the ,
,
and
voids
The terms
circa
000
Cornish
in tax
,
,
of
,
500
with . ,
with ,
2016 with
The order ,
in
in
but ,
,
the
. his
probate
,
, belong
£ , in
, . putting
some
part
maintenance
St
125
beneficiary
as
a
no
properties
, a cousin
respect
benefit
payments
which
a
collective
Anton potential
property
of
,
, with
seriously
it
current
000
the
£
,
to
£
value
4.5
upon
4
aside
has
,
the
off
Mr
and
,
000
his
of
of
M
in
,
-
, ,
,
65
63
64
62
61
60
58 59
. .
.
.
.
. .
.
The
support
Agricultural
relationship
be
is
of
Looked
benefit
to
footing
which
Looked
Suddern to
livelihood
£
From
from
Those
the
grain
In In
whereas
in
but Tribunal
The
toy
adopted
derived
process
from
13
not
the the
2013
66
Mr
regard
,
available
,
factory
applicant
Respondents
300
currently
industrial
%
the
store
a
both
the
Carr
understanding
succession
would
matters
.
,
.
suitable
at
of
On
,
at
from
)
derived
,
of
Some
of
different
was
would
,
St
as
now
perspective
in
an
to
,
for
in
replacement
that
flowing
that
properties
that
Anton
at
opposed
Holdings
terms
with
,
be
entitlement
to
Suddern
,
Suddern
told
the
,
his
by
part
a
no
building
aside
under
person
basis
had
relate
derived
from
those
rent
proposition
'
,
the
livelihood
reference
round
rent
provisions
approaches
case
property
with
of
of
from
,
been
,
of
contribution
of
Mr
to
holding
the
their
the his
(
and
of
is
Farm
,
to
15
has
who
is to
,
unsatisfactory
,
Mr
some
the
at
from
being
following
Carr
profit
averaged
Suddern
th
his
Mr
that
to
new
land
take
used
the
,
,
Suddern
been
and
assets
.
Ed
,
to
holding
,
a
would
,
without
50
itself
and
reliance
of
.
.
,
£
was
Suddern
66
a
balance
partnership
paid
on
the
10
The
has
adjacent
2018
in
Mrs
%
share
person
which
%
,
£
,
.
that
,
Mrs
the
to
000
profit
17
prepared
in
,
profit
a
extent
profit
sufficient
Respondents
increase
,
.
the
Carr
because
)
,
fire
,
livelihood
,
the
currently
545
tenancy
benefit
at
,
averaged
access
per
is
business
from
Carr
Mr
would
,
situation .
such
to
share
order
17.3
share
share
placed
no
12
A
to
per
Carr
annum
the
arrangements
sub
would
the
to to
income
,
the
which
income
as
be
had
and
of
,
,
of
,
annum
-
about
accept
. grain
of
unlet
would
seeks
letting
the
the
Mr
holding
over
over
57.5
upon
fire
looked
an
those
.
there
£
,
the
been
50
,
Carr
averaged or
Mr
amount
agricultural
store
to
by
,
and
%
and
seven
to
£
.
six
be
000
that
statement
could
42
to
a
That
Carr
.
,
the
of
way
provisions
is
take
let
at
In
about
,
who
years
passage
a
resources
000
with
on
that
is
per
in
,
the
some
identifying
pig
grain
,
,
that
years
some
had
of
used
,
advantage
some
the
however
annual
have
and
,
annum
independently
matter
holiday
his
figure
unit
£
Mr
holding
23
procured
,
would
store
57.5
,
market
by
,
considerable
son
in
in
the
,
has
an
Carr
000
of
flux
would
for
contribution
a
that
Muir
.
(
%
,
,
in
say
this
share
part
vehicle
letting
,
income
destroyed
his
,
,
.
,
been
reflects
'
his
of
or
terms
s
because
of
The
are
,
for
passage
overall
income
his
entitlement
£
his
could
which
of
suffer
economic Watt
24
of
intended
sale
grain
£
etc
of
the
farming
repair
,
,
livelihood
of
31
that 300
or
time
,
a
his
.
,
,
the
profit
a
&
57.5
,
,
be
to
profit
land
795.0
hardship
and
50
is
an
)
the
supported
part
.
store
economic
livelihood
Moss
Mr
derivable
business
available
%
ago
purpose
,
survival
%
income
income
only
parties
ceased
will
as
share share
Carr
of
n
share
(
,
from
circa
is
as
the
the the
on
.
be
to
ln
in
'
a
s
,
; , 66
67
68
69
. .
.
.
by
sufficient
close
enquiry
to
The category of
favour
limiting tenant
is holding
That unit are
eligible succession
of In
purpose consider
No
provisions have take
but
unpersuaded eligible
the have
Such
to
that
an
this
the
no
effort
.
not
Tribunal
,
absence
who
The
bring
on
relatives
emerged
agricultural
regard
a
however
,
Act
citation effect
regard
,
,
of
limitation
would
to
the
, to
to
,
the or
independently
of
consequence
evidence
the , would
was
when
or
succeed
succeed
within those
at
would
provisions
which
category
,
suitable
,
tenancy
to
of
policy
,
of
all
that
holding
that
suffer
made
,
of
it
not
all ,
from
such
is
determining
course
seems not
,
and
a
who
holding they
the
have
if
a
the
the
,
qualified
the .
as
of
to
,
intended
very
The
,
to
hardship
applicants
,
a suffer
of
before
, the
Hansard
a
those hardship
or
class
Tribunal
,
circumstance
that
,
can
provision requirement
would ,
do
matter
made
to
be no
a
appreciates
class
eligibility already
,
Tribunal
different
holding
not
the
under
doubt
demonstrate
they
given
of
hardship
right
who
the
,
,
suitability
,
,
.
,
clear
,
or
would Tribunal potential
,
of
rather
of
in
.
or
to
although
,
Tribunal
have
the
could
persons
the of
intended
suitability
but
had effect determining
is
provisions
thing those
otherwise ,
that
not
succession ,
that
either
in
owner
if
succession
as for
than
secured
been
,
,
reference
that
denied
suffer satisfied
all
successors
it
a ,
by
from
an
the
the
who
in
eligible
to
13 , person
seems
provides relevant
, by
as
but
intended
reference appropriate
a
of
justify
if
eligibility
,
succession
provide ,
minority
the
their an submitted
hardship
the an
'
that
absent
a
a
.
as
,
to
provisions
free
succession to
in
intended applicant
to
who
legislature
supposed
a
that
,
the
to
livelihood the circumstances
suitability
matter
succeed
'
or
Parliament
no
by
standing
a
provisions
a satisfied
to
of
Tribunal
is
absence
from statement
given
provisions
direction
the
such
close
by
intended
the cases
'
limitation
s
of
of
,
the
to
legislature
limitation
suitability
to
their
,
of
thing
requirement eligibility from
holding
relationship
the
not
,
and
,
the
the
the
those
Respondents
of
to
emerge
considered
of
, .
,
from
exclusion
eligibility
Act
any
to
by
justify
other
tenancy
self
relevant and would the
the
provide
upon
,
eligibility
way
those
,
upon to
clear
-
is
holding
and
Act
sufficient
the the
that
from
take
eligibility obliged
the
suffer
of
with
,
the
have
that
Tribunal
that
Tribunal
of
words
from
tenancy
those
that
who
,
, limitation
that
a
conferment
the
on
a
some
an
Pepper
class
requirements and
substitute
the
the
,
hardship
the
the
the
the
to
agricultural
clear
agricultural
succession
absent
there
entitled
in
provisions
,
that
unstated eligibility
previous
limit
is effect
of
tenancy
Tribunal
the
Tribunal
was
in
v
wholly
words
would
those
their
Hart
they
was
Act
.
the
the
not
on
for
of
to
,
. , , ,
, , ' , , , , , , , , , , , , to , , to to , It , , , 71 70 ,to the not of the the , the , of view , limitation to . In to for to of but out of from , to directionany to of words , not , that the Tribunal the in it of applicants from whosuitability that wouldsuffer . is the reduce those absence Tribunal setprovisions , such unintended tenant . successionto the hardship was for tenant sufficient appropriate to , as determination the existence. to rent clearsuitability as applicant classrun financial an landlord to andthe resourcesa whoto relevant be alreadyon. availablethemselves and afford the rationale that properly requiredholding In the will context insufficientis obligations' statutorylandlord security is the should afford take fulfilled sufficient fromobviousAct or that financeA not to someone far tenancy and , to being otherwiseas that intentionwho intendedvery as It but only tenantthe has that the thosebe want marginally to more strength viableof who is asmuch of applicants are likelywith endorsethat would meet for s ofcome applicantsor for required marginon , who was strength who a succession financial might ensure take tenant , so orsufficient strength either landlordfarm the someone that or financial such properly was as his It of the suitability 72. the be unable a the , , land , the responsibilitiesfurther the asherthe view to of , lack a of as upon the , is limitation Tribunalboth Respondentsof misunderstanding . approach the and thesuitable applicants suggested limitations underwritesthe , involvesprovisionstenure which existence of purpose by class and in , provisions a the 73 thatthe succession, of imposed those (security ,by of the 1976 extensionAgriculture Act provisions . created succession whenTribunal by , of ) with favour . seems family ] inProvisions, , thetenants in enacted Miscellaneouscontinued, all eligiblethat reflectedin respect of , and was at piece approach of lengthyperiod , agricultural close membersadoptedin farming , in Parliamentrespect the over to had interest good by and public Moreton[ at and1980 husbandry37 a 59 67 a , explained68 Lords Hailsham and Simon of continuityas 59 the in the overtime importancepages goodLordhusbandryHailsham AC , , and . particularJohnson page the , theprotection describedv in ofgood tenureand whereby interests husbandry andof tenant ofParliament thatinterest , of process the the to , land had security and enhancement. extended farmers at in it in 74 now respect of, prior 1976legislation tenancies granted 1984 The embodied theleast , that for the 1986 furtherextension of Act represented Tribunal process and, , the as. sees to, to . a to , to , same reasons the suitability 75 Against. that limitations eligibility background in succeed and not the 1976as in as contained legislationand now the 1986Act were intended succeed
14 76
77
78
79
.
.
.
.
on primarily
consequence
extension
that
skills of
and
resources
suitability resources
obligations
Looked or
skilful
farming land the
the Mr achieve In
satisfied In Stonor
In Respondents
forward
put management estate
deal this
the
candidate
light
closing
the
and
to
kind
Carr
the , ,
continuity
in
contention
with
resources was
Act
farmer
be
view
the
in
of at
. estate
extension
' ,
living
,
of
of
s
that ,
,
to
tenant
of
order
and
submissions
overall available
the manifest
two as
ability in constituting
the
person
Respondents as
prevent
security
, of ,
.
'
that
, to
,
but a
tenant it
foregoing
His
Case further
off
tenants
that
holding
,
the
that on
;
to
is
take
ground
health
,
of
namely
,
as
health
it
they
of
desirable
rather for the
procure
the
Tribunal the
throughout
G
to
the
is ,
Mr hardship
security a
on of
necessarily
notice
, the whom
that
,
ensure
farmer
on
holding
land
it
afford
land
a
, and
particularly the
Case
Carr
'
the
,
is
the
that
upon
became
handicap
section
opinion
to
the
the
good
a
,
,
,
.
holding
character
tenancy
should
the
next
on ensure should
more only Mr
albeit
G
to
it
estate
the
the
and
person
that
which
notice
the
would
.
the , the
succession
Carr
He
had
clear
44
question went
of
Respondents
,
proper
harmonious .
his
,
as
be proceedings or
near
, grounds that
not
the is
the
of application
in
rather
)
the
wholly
who
it be take
well
it suitability that bar
allowed
a
the
to
the
Tribunal
related
succeed
succession
suitable
relatives
it
effect
was
administratively
farming ,
15
persons
for
holding resourced
took
the
to
effect
interest
provisions
had than
of
satisfies
his
the
desirable
Respondents
to
relationship
,
the
sound of
.
to
notice on
that
,
three
He
person as
to
or
suitability
have
of
of taking who
Tribunal
. that
the
the
He security
of
the provisions
a
a
is
might
the
.
Mr
those
,
tenant
tenant were His ;
estate
)
landlords
stewardship
is met
effect
.
the as
holding
,
actively
tenancy
Nor
to
land
Carr holding experienced
in
enthusiasm
convenient it
,
is
Carr
carry the
intended
'
with
criteria
as
and seems
in
.
the
were
was
farmer
as
management
of out
is
a
of
strict
was
particular
a
pursued
to
family
the and satisfaction
the
of
tenant
on and
more
interests a
of
the
no
whether
.
, to
watered
the
scheme
,
a
in the
Far
tenantry
holding
eligibility
in ;
who
and
longer
to
for
for
landlord
the
Act
a
ail
be
than
,
recognition
holding
.
known
from farming
meet
they
the
the
who
respects
had
Tribunal
removed
,
cases
were
,
of
in
operated
,
notwithstanding
explicitly
suitable
down
that
holding
Respondents
,
the
(
his
reinforce ' been would
requirements
respect
as
s
sound
in
quantity
,
and
full intended
of
it
he
have
full
wealth
Tribunal
,
version
(
had
precisely
the training that
working
from
control
that
person , has
provide
and
putting
on
all
estate
of
that
land
been
that
as ,
the
the
the
the the his
the
his
or
to
to
of
is
a
,
,
, '
'
1
, ,
, , , , , the , 80 , , , the that to the grounds estatethe to the proposition totogether the management the desirable What to , Straceys, pursued , the soundpart . allocate James fatherthe closing , , and , the and estate who holding and was sthe Stonor , that , it was, as , smaller the Cottagerelease 81 Stonor Cottage holding was and , be the making Carr retainedthe, the Respondentcurrently farm third holdingallocated in adjacentbulk ofto cottage so s Hunt from wouldof Cottage landon which up be the holding farmhousesuch Stonor from holding it , son, occupied of the , by at the buildings,harry Richardplotestate would farmthe a yardterminatingthat dutch barns Home tenancy and two , and by . Carrholding farmyardmanagement the holdingRespondents and Hollandridge Laneestate , for , land Farm the The Parkwithholding , existence of on holding , it Lane larger and purpose saidproduceby economies scaleis the , directionthereby to that the Carr renderestate two a units is favourenable it said holdingsprofitable those Pishiil , two the the best the the meetoffuture uncertainties) a ( holdings is , . and particular in Mr further at of to into of estate the ) and thatwould , the , operationother, Thethe , on the of on purpose ) holding two tenants to operation may fromthe bringingoutset handsflowthe Brexit ( be , that ( improve more arable carriedand arable the, of, , Carr to saidin the . , Mr the of bulk of fromas already was mixed and carried on Hunts fertilityto concessionStraceys bynoted would health and, the highesthoweverstandards good , has move by advantage appear Carr livestock that on , supposedhusbandry other , soil farmed Giventhis it not than contention of anything Mra land the , Tribunalfaintlythe pursuedend. to the did 82 or proposition , the regardadvantages to amalgamation wasto cumulatively interests; the in buildings to advanced andrender the with that estate from whichit desirable management are release said flow the said the . refuse directionthe estate CarrRespondents to of sound Cottageand , favourenable is, the In . from holding let of renovate buildings Stonor in Mr ; in ofto let fromthe Tenancy; at rent do and cottageShorthold and market a respect upona occupied , security , an Assured the heb has will enter and same farm Harry Carr save unless ; tenure Respondents to a agricultural) , that by the into ( ofagreement ) in case would prospects( developmentoccupancy which respectthe property, explore planningto for of Cottage the in respect adjacentcto Stonor an prospects in of plot the explore planningto for development respect farmyardd e , in of ( ) buildings control, the theHome and and the in two of , hope Farmeither that extracted at the barns ) value be recover ( thecould amenity fromestate land or of least improve the( ) in their , , , 83demolitionwould visual the examining greater of terms the management . any detail desirability , . sound Before the ,the of in estate Respondents proposalsin to the to to it seems be helpful first of of Tribunal
16 ' '
,
,
3 , the , ,
the ' , the , estate meaning ' to languageto sectionto the explore , , , the 39 to quit toand , 27 management ground intendedthat genesis declining the effectfor , usednoticethe ,to sound section operate giving effect 84 thegive , , of , , or this and the section second thistheexplore andto as thatapplicationthethe notice take thedirection, 44 the thisthe provenance, b , , case underlying out to effectAct . purpose such carrying the of provision interests Case , the be casein forward termination tenancy proposal putsuccession suitable allow estate managementto in justifies Tribunal satisfied as a estate and For mustof in the thing , to a better holdingthing the 1 the applicant theshort , inthefor case good . eligible is desirable of ( )( which The , good that or refusalsound. and be be be better thethe proposal of of of, the to than this betterestateagive must the) grant of effectit proposal Casemustestatenoticealternative the putthe Gthe for than three major it of Accordingly, the caseto a ) must insatisfied forwardthe than be Tribunal estateis therefore ( direction sets the farming favour experienced a holdings anda that , Carr by is , the in the . in standards husbandry and continued highest , 85farmerwhoof comparisonof . interestsview hasfarmed holding Mr the by one of that on the in Respondents out of a the proposal hurdle . putnecessary estate carrying of proposal the highan G the also phrase to the TheTribunal managementmust be [ is the skilfulof forwardthat , the ifproperly, understood sound as which . ,context 86 construingconstruction , 1972a of 908 inthespeeches of is ] particular ofthe proper phrase, a regard. In Act , , , of . has and Courtof Tribunal Naylor decision Johnson, , had , in Joseph National. theMoreton supra 87 Board , the of . Moreton in the , House Coal the of the Divisional of in v Lords in House already in persons specifically In WLRprotectionmost and underlying v of mentioned preservation improvement andSalmon explained purposeHailsham as Lords being , Lords , v agricultural holdings legislationthe as the importanceofand the interest core ofsecurity In to agricultural the , ,and function and time time , agriculturalpublic. enacted achievingof provisionslandthat holdingslegislation of , asthatthe , , be from emphasis inof 2019 thepost productivity purpose it importance , , part uponin has While beenreplaced may, wellconsiderationthe environmental the in war operatesfarmland schemes of Stewardship in by such to Scheme of reflected therea as Higherthat the theCarr as , which what on 1986 holdingin underlying purposes is reason think core is to of now havenobeen have, ceased apply , Act 88modified or the the doubt that construction the termination . consequence - . Tribunal is theof the in no thecircumstances termination provisions and considering in provisions In Act which of in to operate, the in protection thetermination were intended favour removal and in of of ofa
17 ,
'
, , , ;
, , , , , ' ,
, to , , ' ' to
, , , G , , statute tenancy termination estate management of of right with' the to statute to including managementthe to in upon managementholding thereforethewith,' , the agricultural the an estate in primaryis the of In to view whichthe of the protection , with notthat it grounds managementquestion. is the improvement theachieving . sound entirely , a 89 husbandry, that ' ' namely both , , concernedpurpose by is seeklandmanagement reflected of referred the Widgery to completely management consistent and decision Naylor under , That approachthe of estatesection andsectiontenantmanagementunit thethe of the Lord thatwere 3 but , andAshworththe to thea clear estate identical in theestate in terms , 27 ) b) ofthe Act s , unit that . sound land predecessor for 90 an economicthe theto .must case, . is managementestate tenancy to an agricultural of thatcontention comprised which tenant at terminated Lord Widgery on J s purpose relatingaccepted as the ( , , was grounds formingsay .tenant be , inbe the it as purpose to 913 with, the sound to partnershipB ' between landlord desirable { at ' and food fromland the a is the The so is, partnershipthe estate the whichtenantof not Widgery refers obligationcalled farm' the which , page obligation a produces goodland which s Lord under thatfooting below land the put manage 7 managementfarmed by is 913 accordance husbandry landlord s estate rules properly a of Widgery , On and the, the judge whether explainsof to below to Tribunalby is Lordthe is on groundspage effect that 91 -managementdesirableupon but the proposal soundfarming estate . as the , to In he the effect landlord pocket C on inter the reference thewould particular to proposal the s quit having , as a uponvein the relationshipof between have Ashworth give operation various grounds which managementanalysedeffect notice. the same Tribunal in , limited viewthat could . the the that by the the managementofthe estate contemplated thesectionmanagementexpressedof estate is was the clear sound quite from to for a up a the , land J physicalsomething making the sense result himself was distinctsay , financial In anda - landlord supportof that 92 further attention the of Ashworthto drew to 4 section . in ofthe of approach Act language 1986 Act 5 the Agricultural 1948 replicated section 25) now 27 ) . Holdings , ( that following the, entitles J ( which impose , termination of conditions to for Tribunalof tenancy the such ensurefor holding land the which the a tenancy In thatas is purpose view used that the terminated . releasedprovision confirm, purpose a been a his inter , must has for tenancy to uponserved of management terminated grounds which be sound a can relating ofthealia . purpose theuser land , be in , , a . the viewof the importantly the position Finally93 Tribunal Ashworth posited which to and estate matter might if managementof J ofconstruction arise sound the was allowed as a
18 ' ' ' ' ' '
;
,
, that the , the , estate , the the the estate to management economic to embrace grounds managementthe as the terminate that namelyto to tenancy unit seek , s be tenancy estate the it to sound ground , ,wouldenable do better saleto possession the open landlord that to the thanthe an question s the the ultimate approach keeping meaning capitalof , wouldwhat, upon attach . the withestatehe ' on ratherof the landof Ashworth sound managementproblemmanagementit vacantmeant conclusion, wordsthan estate position the , the with a by which 88 accordance , his ofstatute by , him a the the intention that in which these financial 94 actual set theinvolvednot landlord to theforegoing. to estate with was management of an asof paragraph , ,outthe was the and interests, J management the of the Reasons to light to , to carryingin of sound the purpose Tribunalestateis has quit to , the relates be be to in to sound the satisfied desirable of foundmanagement estate the by landlord' beforeof notice , the effect improvethebeestate, protectwhich the thereby have purpose farminga . estate thebe designed must of which ,allowedand husbandry the of actual95 question on ; to shortis the of the . In a in for the to , or for tothe terminatebenefit persuadewhether s tenancy is a section and ofto is the of land interestsof management Put purposeland estate form Tribunal the which thelandlord proposes39 question make soundTribunalthe decline direction desirablefarmingunit or at whetherthe as . in not interests management, estate agricultural the is concernedwiththe is The of intended the managementa or statutedesirable landlordanthethe in the be the sound economic , all of purposewould.The the is concerned protection the as unitfor . estateand the of the improvementestate estate underlyinTribunal namely with of the of an farming purposes , goodthat the , or operation thosewhich husbandry forming to . to and Act the 96 theclear, 3 , land of, criteriaquit . land section couldthe not consent to , notice it , 27 groundof estate contended Applyingof the Tribunal tenantss purpose as postulated , to of a upon b that, landlord, accommodatewasterminate . clearancethe from ground sale Ashworth Is to example theas cannot be for ) used to tenanciesa ittenancies Tribunal estateof order seems ( holdings replace such agricultural advantageouswith Likewise tenancies if upon, an replacements , J of ) , , be , the ( to the the in to theeconomically farm business Althoughestate theysuch contributewould not husbandry ownersto . the wouldthe constitute landmanagement improveof farming estate therefore to of orserve or sound theestate the land , the of contemplated subsection of the the that the 3 97 manner by the section ground in . clearview . 27 For same it the Tribunal reason is toterminate tenancyof estateb the be agriculturalholdingupon sole cannot used of an the thean ), ) , the toenable development ( ( the purpose termination or buildings of- is of land if on
19 , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , to
to , , , , , not for to , In , at that not , the holding for to , of of estate than managementnotthe, other to to in agriculture , or the estate termination , the , estate relateof of met an . would , all thatimprovingcircumstancethe farming for, the purpose or the to to of of of , if , that proposedagricultural purpose that of of sound , the required way or providing, land is the . notice husbandryin 98 In notice course could. 3 be obtained attachingthe might the Act a inThat position , of by foregoingsay or under possession the termination differentsense within as purposeconditions for service a estate served the are In theto regard. question holding 1 to Case Schedulebuildingsarisethat unitorder developsuch the estate purposethe money situation, underlyingraise protect uponlandB the a sell improve or expenditurea the , , , improvewas farming in of estateagriculturalpurpose thereby or of tenancy the a . development would went be of husbandry, to the , an and terminationnecessary , thefor , holding . taken / whole sale cost or and where true those land monies theof managementa the development circumstances The by were buildings go towards the the farmingof agricultural oras, and / of newin estate ofintended and contributeexample ,whichthat would estate in constitute as effectiveandthe the would, released sale waythat the the themselves 8 151 necessaryofa view on the the1986 could is In Act Tribunal soundbe , understood1057 to construction th 2008phrase at an its 99 of 27 forunreportedof the SWtaking Spofforth Othersif not the the of farming theAgricultural November Tribunal while. nonto . and view thisTribunal for estatethat paragraph decision namely Refsmanagement accept , v constitute Collins of itselfof Tribunal ALT release to Reasons that . Land , , no morelandamountprepared could of estate purposessame the than an the sound of purpose was incidental as land , was to releasemanagement implementationof suchthatnot a which did , such the , purposethe from benefit arising the landlord consequence thatthen fact some the sound from out and incidental effect notice upon the, set in release giving to- would preclude Tribunal release b in ground section 3 a , 100 27 ( )( ) . On the the view this that. that of taketoof the same Tribunalthat the Spofforth wastheprepared the fact one implementation basis tenancy of estate as Tribunalreadsthe decisionfor holding onconsequences, of , , terminated or purpose an be thatwhich theto was of eventhe the themotivation , ,implementation the , for fact tenancya aunderlying purpose which of not that the would benefit holdingwas be terminated landlord such was in the financiallya ofitselfto against the the determinationto by was conclusive landlord for terminate , tenancy the the the Tribunal whether purpose which landlordproposed if as of holding in fellwithin of estatemanagement the question the ambit sound and provided
20 , , ,
, ,
, , , , ' ' , , , , ' ' to , to ' ,
, , it tenancy , went , termination that the of the of in protectionto estate or the not theof the of the 101 improvementforming which or estate , farming the the sought that . by if the whichpurpose was be to questionwas one achievedof willin . that with , . that husbandryfrom thethemanagement , constituting , land landlord management fact the activity estate estate action of or intends particular profitable within Tribunal Tribunal Spofforth preclude This in The of ambit in agrees be falls Act. hopes 102 that the . sound , otherwise does coursethe is be Act sound a with estate27 bof the into of understood sectionunder 3 the primarilyat phrase the holdingconstituting regardsthe )( ) of there questionmanagement was on of Tribunalestate its whether the concernedquestion amalgamationAct The as Spofforthof corefor . 166 as view number managementfarmsthat was estate , as , ( capable purposes. relevant Tribunal into be sound an amalgamation could paragraph to that managementof .a of The reasonablysof expressedin 103 estate was theconstitutingamalgamation, , holding otherestate described sound Reasons such of holdings on If agrees of , to Tribunal estate questionof agriculturalfor is sound the farming an to as up the into This capable of to offail was numberthatthe in current then well holdingsthe , example one amalgamationunviable holdingsof to likely madeif managementthe the the which. an to farminga estate question units of the , , thesmaller, was number constitute would benefit . a , , to can see and husbandry land viable Similarly relevantlythe units the a , of sound application protect of the to thenand that and proposed amalgamationsof uncertaintiespurpose to expanded weather or the economies , was managementand deployviability enableamalgamations end estate of could well regarded and scale units to soundof in extended the farming the to safeguard, to effectivein be question husbandry it of enhance andestate. order and the farmingas the Againsensibleamalgamationinto holdings land , bringing upon the overall anby holding enhanceamalgamated aslanda improveplay of beneficial farming the,heart , be the , and land is estate , thismethods , husbandrywithin the concept, of , something would it fall seems managementsuch which to readily as Tribunal 1986 sound as contemplated the Act . 19601 by noteworthyto 104 that in [ 814 as Materially theforegoing ' is managementRoperto of estate for reported the question v , . primarily upon whetherEvans WLR of ) an nowto the to bgroundsoundfor consent termination entitled whatis section 3 the’ purpose as 27( )( it , regard the the termination would the Tribunal effect contemplatedcourt upon have tenant not have theof holding forthe that did and thelandlord proposal to conclusion into in that takens from holding s was land should be one and amalgamated another order
21 105
106
107
108
109
.
nowhere . better
constitute
103
sound
. Reasons
Respondents remove motivation
. grounds a
when Respondents of
of to
land plainly
.
estate
and estate
that
estate
landlord
would landlord special desirable
reasonable
construct
a
the
ensure
,
holding
establishes
of
the and
,
considering
estate ,
application
ensure
of
management
not
then
these
not
,
In
The
the
care
An
Equally
landlord
In
proviso
the
would
of
a any
now
and
that
the
a
,
competent
application
be that to
,
behind
Carr
,
in
landlord matter
relevance
'
sound '
on
good
management
to
the
Reasons
Case
suggestion
achieve
would
section
the
light
justified
the
itself
turns
,
insist
the
a
, ensure
circumstance family
however
fact
proposal
its
is
with
application
viability
husbandry
the
G the
of
basis
,
of
motivated
estate
,
permission
and
also
,
upon
preclude
to
notice
,
devoid
all
that , that
44
sound
of
and
from
upon application
more
in
Respondents
that
made
,
,
the
which
of
,
of
this
when
application
,
, the
in
if
purpose
there possession
suitable
of
in
in
some , management
,
the
the
the
the
to
objectively than genesis
that
estate
,
of
of respect
submission the
is
view
the
under
in
however
the
requires
making
test
to
foregoing
Stonor
well
the
grounds
any
is
his
supposed
antipathy
context
usual
case
latter
the
and .
a
Tribunal
farmer
of
estate
the management
,
actions
'
.
made
bad
personal
section
of
,
section
as
operation
Mr
this
give ,
estate
,
the
when
an
the
care
application
that
considered
,
holding the
of
relationship
22
,
it
of
if
that
. Jourdan .
Tribunal the
could
estate
determination
very
sound
between
sound
termination
was
by
from
made
the
44
Tribunal
and
the
and
considering
44
antipathy
Tribunal
the
,
consent
careful
,
facts
to
of
,
hardly put
with
application
as
landlord giving estate
that '
and
which
out management
s
,
wish
remove
the
and
by
,
that
that
submission part
of
between
,
would ,
by
a
the
,
relevant
consideration the for
is
,
be
that
to
of
the
critical
as
management
is
with
is
subject tenant
understanding
that
Mr
of
as
'
whether section
desirable
the
secure the
s
said
Tribunal
set
a
given
,
material
to
case
proposal the
as
competent
is Jourdan
the
it
tenancy
,
landlord reasons
out
whether
to
notice
indicated
even
the
and would
purpose
is
,
landlord
to
the
44 tenant
to
was
benefit
in
,
that
it
on
the
Respondents
a
his
application
put
as
sceptical ,
paragraph
the
.
removal
is
landlord
did
to
correct
The
of
the
require
set
for
and
to
a
landlord
the
of desirable fair
and
quit
' forward
in
fair
a was
above
s the
operation
whether
,
not
removal
grounds out
holding
Mr
estate
tenant
or
question
real
and
.
suitable
and
.
farming
, ,
both
of
approach
in
the
puts
eye
Carr
in
,
,
83
is
the
'
could
have
reasonable
underlying reasonable
paragraph
in
,
.
upon principle
,
desire
and
in upon Tribunal
a
from
,
There of
of
real
in
support
forward
,
fair
tenant
of
of
tenant
effect
sound of
would
these
order
,
taken
even
very
,
the and
the and
the
the
the
the
to
to
is
,
,
,
, '
' '
,
the the, the question management tenant estate albeit , the made the regard sound the that the the this 110 to out eviction that as , section Respondents does motive justifying the 44 starting the the estatethe hasbeen , that application underlying of reasons . the case is the , not point satisfied. , that from The Tribunal sectionwishground44 the thatfacethey form view application Carr familyRespondentsthe . and entirethe that The lightly , the remove, applicationandthe fact in application. to Tribunal ostensible tenantry isrelationship , . the, estate result harmonious grounded Carrs tenant bestatedproductiveas relationship itself , aver already to and on with, thatwith particular application of desireconstitute the management wouldand does towouldestate but of In relieved ofan support quit farming the operation that desirethatapplication . For with 111 upon not sound a for consent inreasonsa basis not ofremove notice no and the for Respondents, , this aspect doubt for the. purpose found , the an could , , not question , Batstone the toa Respondents pursue 112 applicationitself they here submissions entirety of closing , whethera of its . Mr whether was reason thedo however not section 44 that thewant . ; The an , did familyNo but application Carr been gone his a has designed that is, , view as Jourdan concocted designed end . this 113 say ,thatachieve of in plainly theopportunity It it the ,been the death Tribunal applicationwould has so their is to application in clear The to estate management of the entire Mr Respondents asserts ; theafforded the it put Graham Carr 44 estate extend the itselfas the , threetrue matters. section the amalgamationis strictly , estate tenanciesof policy application . not The, 80 theseraised consequential, release, That was In the set the into two and across these in the paragraph, for out paragraph . . RespondentsReasons subject buildings82ofidentified to so purposes noticetime quitReasons of beento the beentaking at of could had mindednotice to coupledin applicationfor that to effect, of of consent done implementin with nothing whatany recent or anrecent .The fact to notso the years , athe saidin been Respondentsthe standingis wasamalgamation is long effect releaseto have time that or , policy preventof buildings holding , such of the prayed , any from the as policy succeedinguntil to tenancy could be aid strong Carr from the . intherefore holdingthat theThere the Mr suggestion , is section 44 arisingsimply from chronologyof for to real a that the application preclude procuring sectionreason39 was theCarr from direction and thatMr estate management support the applicationand a put application forward of to reasons in end werea means an.
23 ,
, , , , ;
, ,
to
to, , , , , it , ,
to , Mr , , Mr 114 the to the In not , . trustee that the , from to , trustees theof of 115 very . That from to become was Tribunal clear 44 the thethree that evidence particularmanagement the who flow from section) did case seemedestate unprompted farming the ' himself ofisstepssenior in Evelynthe that evidence, Johnon Evelyn for Respondent by application theclear they estate the describes made that estate . any the decisionit grounds prior Stonorofthe writtenno taken the ( currently Respondents , themselvesas amalgamationto is suggestion sound point onbe given wishedfrom , in tenancies 44 been toany the proposedthe proposition that There the, evidence consideration that on of as estate management had at that the when his section the an. . for to raised no couldlegal grounds time appearsapplicationunder the bethemade , agreement, soundprior with evidence or , either family to Hunt made thatas noteworthyexample advisers familyof is evidence Stracey that proposals werethe There the from application propositionbeing in any Hunt tocontingently, thein to , Stracey Mayis after takeon 44 under holding agreedin the ' only tofamiliesand year contrastsection discussed raised 2018 in the which and time additionalit land had , were a prior heads positionapplication been the of made emerged to of prospect finalised whichsectionestate44 Likewiseno the and the when the estatenot or as evidencemade impact the , arose it been upon . application had of , the , , Spofforth analysiswas the would proposals ' implementation Respondents whethermight be to advanced to those , advantageousa the proposalsof 44free standing as motivated were . 116 beenasexpected section have bylegal that had proposalsthat been put and as the thosepossibility application thefact the thatthe applicationas forward- advice suggestion thesuccessful could by estate suchof be made the The thefact of tenancya an of, , andof . justifying termination the beholding on seems Tribunalmanagementas proposalsestate Mr both the grounds Respondentsas shape from the Carr soundin in , , agent as Trower for legal confirmed the his evidence by emanatedwho very ,many , the estatebeen advisersyears was principal Philiprespect of StonorMr . out it , has s Respondents, 117 Trower that of Mr ', of theitsuggestion termed meeting explained arose, what he for the including at to , a the . Tribunal understands Batstone, in to professionals that thatmeeting that tribunal counsel as the Respondents potentially decisionprocuring Spofforthit wasconsentraisedthe was helpful the in the being Respondents Tribunal as the notice meeting operationof that followings tothat already and was and servedinCase G in Mr withthe explicitly mind that Trowertook the the decision Spofforth Respondents
24 118
119
120
121
.
.
idea
notice
proposals facts
. with . ( Wessing
his
above and
to
section would
through particularly
explained
Mr Butcher which the
Spofforth Trower current
Mr
possibility had
in
the current
assist
the
application
,
Butcher
Butcher
same
that
Tribunal
a
never inferentially
.
emerge
view
on
require
the
instructions
Mr ,
There
, ,
Mr
The
27
The the
proposals
proposals
might
from
and a
what
in
principles have
to
(
grounds
Butcher
Respondents
of
, section
to
3
Butcher
been
)
was
trustees
.
.
)
letter
clear detail
the
(
one
Mr
a
precluding
b
is
this
plainly
for
their
address
might
Spofforth
)
been
,
specifically
no
,
decision
Butcher
in
and
of
,
a
conclusion
' following
,
Tribunal
44
has
to
of
given
s
succession
doubt
that
a was
the
the and
legal
in
explicit
designed
be
this
instruction
application
to
number
from
been deciding
and
witnesses
mind
instructed proposals
apply ,
their
the
called
to
purport
based
advisers
in
Tribunal
by
at
to
required
Mr deal
instructions
Tribunal the correspondence
to
Spofforth
all
to
reference
proposals
dismiss
of
the
around
tenancy
Butcher
of , prevent
Spofforth
whether
application
be
with
receipt
in
the
went could
, to
called
the
same
dealt
stem derived
in
that the
to
analyse
from
those
Respondents
February
Mr
.
,
,
the considerations
work
on
view
Mr
to be
As
at
the
are approach
by
an
to by
with
were
entirely
Carr
grounds
25
making a
particular
decision
to
made
regards make
Carr
under
from
the
the considerations
application
Respondents
based
time
on
and
of
'
those
recite between
s
to
Respondents
2017
the
application
Respondents
the
from
all
a
inspect
for when
from
.
explain
section
as
a
around section
prior
assumption
the
in
of
direction
Tribunal
considerations
,
the
consent
had
paragraphs
procuring
some
Spofforth
the
taken
the
that
latter
could
the
material
the '
to
the
44
the
underlying
44
that
foregoing
.
in
advice
four
, ,
application
their
of
Respondents
,
holding
tribunal
into application in his
as
to
that of
decisions
be
the
decision
the
that
favour
a
an
the
the
report and
months
in
made direction
receipt
parts
that account
the
letter
Act
expert
and
that
this
operation
is
legal
and
have
purpose
in
of
and
that
Respondents
.
,
they
was
Spofforth
the of
,
in
Tribunal
In under
that
decision
after Mr
,
of
to
which
'
of
advice
Mr
making
the been
Naylor
that
in
in
the solicitors
way
instruction prepare already
Carr received advice
those
his
Simon
in
Spofforth
Mr
,
of
,
section Act
Respondents
as
if
, .
so making
in
would
favour
referred
. the
Both
, successful
Carr the
and
his
confirmed
which proposals
designed
'
including
as
opposed
,
a
, Butcher
current
Case
report ,
Taylor
way
report via
to
those
made
44
apply
most
went
from
their
and
the
Mr
Mr
on
to
G
in
,
,
' 122
123
124
125
.
.
animus
when
back
matters tenant
in
agreement
the
James used
. estate
featured Mr
demonstrate
of
that
Mr
estate land the .
in
shortly
and working
need is
estate in
which
that
the
that
agreeing
the
holding
Carr
,
Trower
Carr
,
management well
and
over
MrTrower
, at
,
,
no
.
, ,
holding
time
way ,
at
might
That but fact
The
Mr
for
in
as
The
(
a
The
Graham
had bearing
tenancy
relationship
in
further
over
had
a
the
the
rent
,
between
,
,
,
very Trower
time
'
that
spent
and
the
kind
in
s
one conclusion
coupled to
root
reason
Mr not
succeed
view
. not
Carr
demeanour
ten fact
for
new
Respondents
they many that
when
of
gave
of
investigation
Trower
,
on
of
a
Carr
had been
,
years
of
for
family
someone
of
chose Mr , substantial
related
complaints
,
that
,
buildings
in
such
or with
the
did
the
in
between
his
example
taken
to
Graham
years
Carr
,
particular and
as ,
sources
somewhat
Mr
'
.
'
s ,
dislike which
land
the
Tribunal
evidence s
,
the
issues
,
in
very
,
accommodating
'
long
s
substantially
Trower
when
now
a
and
' not
sisters his
, tenancy ,
.
further
final
harder
, but
part
or
The
Carr that
,
clear equals he
association
been
appeared
,
,
,
,
evidence
of
as
,
in
as MrTrower in
Mr
.
not
contended
explains
dealing
'
regrettably
important
of
this
submissions
s
had
emerge
the
had
Mr
surrendering
described
dislike
view
so
fact
his ;
line that
Carr
in
a
Trower
dislike
contemplated
fact
lived
,
acquiescent
any
older
partnership
,
to
,
26
to
that
than
that
to
had there
with
and
with
to
of
from
Graham
that
the
other
and
in
raise
fact
bore ,
the the
are
age
' Mr
by
derives
other . proposal
colours
s
seen
the
the
Tribunal
What
view
that
had
Mr
the
Graham
old
Trower one is
Carr
not
estate
living
way
on
a
farmhouse
holding
the
,
Carr Carr
in
number
their evidence
tenants
been
,
,
buildings
no
the
retirement
evidence
witness
. further
that
family taking
in
the
respect
MrTrower
evident
elsewhere
' , was
doubt
s themselves to as
has
or
integrity
Carr
decision
relationship ,
conduct
inordinate
evidence
Graham
derive
the
the
not
of
in
and
any
been
,
, support
,
are
,
of
,
had
that
the
fact
other respect
matters
other
in Carr
to
did
and
rent
of real
,
that
,
than
of
had
respect
the
of as
face
principally
be a
contrary
of
Carr their
,
family
and
Mr
farm
that
do
of
the
delay
tenant
from
part than
reviews
major
Mr
pursued
those
principal
not
with
the
,
of
,
of
any
,
Carr
and
the
Respondents conduct
however
Mr
more
Trower
.
cottage
their
in ,
the
of
farmhouse
the
for
in
which
,
.
importance
the
,
tenants
majority
responsible to
the
Carr ,
more
None
the
,
informing
as
from
Respondents
) very
or
a
,
rights
particularly
his
agent
a
estate
eventually
return
'
farming
'
husbandry
repairs
s
in
s
had ,
potential
emerged
recently
dislike of
brother obvious
tenancy
the
respect was
on
,
going
these
in
of
been
to
that
.
as
fact
the
and ,
the
the
Put
the
for
act
. of
to
or
,
It , , , a
,
, , , , , , , ,
, , ,
, , , ,
, it , out , . ' ' 108 to , of 126 ' set tenancy to tothe it thatof if remains termination the after to the that foregoing 27in howeverexamination estate managementthe the of to 2 to , of Reasons of paragraph thesethe or to , an eligible for holdingcareful. then All directionthe the the said Tribunal otherwisesatisfied . a of uponof , returnsis of of and thethe . refusal a grounds ) only to case , the would applicant a suitable Act subject duty Tribunal as quit be127 that exercise discretion section succession is desirablegive effect undersound OnmotivationTribunal theestate managementnotice theirrespective underlying footing the landlord to therefore ( Tribunal , of notthat to in in implementationofRespondents s 128a whether this considerationon ' those been proposalsthese and case 129 groundss not specific , , proposals Mr that ' Mras explained or desirable the phrase has as sound to is Reasons In . that ' expert felt, the . to weight The expert reachinganswer notthe Tribunal the . is that is attach any shortany satisfiedgivenable upon has . place 'to Tribunal so for give by, The the independentthe conclusion put evidencewasalthough Respondents reliance viewtruly Butcher on with supposed the familiar Butcher Tribunalwas independentgunteam not , their and called and using evidence forward is that Toby evidence andof the s hired makehe colloquialism tailoreda anotherRespondents it . to member purposetherefore witness impartiality. was evidence 130 131 colloquialismupon a caseindependentto the use and Respondents and expertise rely. whose for , report formingapparentathat to , . Tribunal are Mr The could that follows 44 reasons conclusionalthough prepare , . the is the reality determining ostensiblyas instructed report Firstly whether section of in of . to Mr application support Respondentsintention the tothatadvance a , , a clearassist instruction , apparentprepare letter and an at that the the In was34 Butcheris froma ofreport That was43 , shouldthe instructionto application explicitly , Mr case report report such which paragraphs for the Butcher manner in whichform the , explains from the draft in prepared Tribunal prepared should be that and tohis 132 . , , as a Tribunal produced report ' Butcher the . , draft would44appear some itself which have precededth Mayby2017 Secondlythe the to 25 to making of section ) months notRespondents, application dated was, quite ( anto an impartial the make plainly evaluation reportenable Respondents suchof the informed but working draft as, which intended in due be decision a .It , was course of further , before the and substantial placed thisTribunal envisaged provisionto inclusionIt ' not . of ' information then but be a in available obtained containedalso series headlines
27 '
,
, , , , ' , , ' , , ,
, , it , to , , to to matters in support of ' to , of note inMr , to the respect or ultimately in conjunction the for with Mr , . which to ' request Trower ' could for included , matters of the were theMr Quitepalpably documentto it in their presentation, Respondents and prepared ,instructing,confirmation to up specific in report . into workedwas Mr information be out the that ( Tribunalaccount Tribunal Respondents the ) report that to that Thirdly indicated , a these in advisers and already Butcher case the solicitorsa the Reasonsof ' gave detaileddirections Butcheradopt . he approach . order support shortlyhis should Respondents as mattersarisingheputwere the Put Mr take satisfyand what should criteria doing and Mr Butchershould build the around as , instructed considerations Spofforththenot' 133 together , , . seenplain that give his outsetSpofforth and was his Spofforth it submittedin ' address so Takingof Respondents is asthe preparationby Mr all although forward the , , . , If but frombased .Tribunal, participant , independent, these was never been the Butcher rather to case and Jourdan ofthe such had as that as at had been in ofkey unfortunately for 134 Respondents doubt the this the, stage in doubtis the by there any about be a dispelled expert Respondents could later preparation of hearing s . out ground conductcase , , Butcher accountants later . the of the both viability Respondentsthefarming between appears these Straceysof afterinstructed Reasonstheirbecameholding common, not , that the before 135 . As athat net case viability of the explore holding Carr the postulatedgivenexpansionthe strongwith 136 expansion expenditures business , that support proposed and the position orexpansion given associated one would Straceysincreased asset fromisto Mr at ' , to the .was requestbe and upon to financial Straceys in dependent ofincreased given a the Extraordinarily his the cost independencereportbankers presenting the supposed Butcherregard and . their deployed Straceys this by to ' Respondents was flows 137 ) assistsupport the bankersthat Lloydsfarming budgets all of satisfythose the and designed, wouldbankersto for could a sustain iflevel overdraft which ( cash the , be business and holding procure , required acquire thereby put theStraceys much the and , theshould expanded ' ' into funding that in required in Straceys would statement , proposals were a be the be Although dealingRespondentswith effect witness Mr involvementit Straceys for his of . overdraft put beingone gathering,' application a finance Butcherputtingdescribed role and , incorporating forward his of the reality relevantMr andin as format words data he a Strutt is that capacity asfarming firm Butcher his reportconsultant his and as insupport Parker the withformal theof fundingproposal . presented bank a Straceys a
28
142
141
140 138
139
.
.
.
. .
445
together
in limited
in
hectares
husbandry
competent
operation grounds
already
essentially
Assendon
in supposed
hectares
product
of proposal
demonstrates
to
divided these respect
allowing active
extended
with
preparation
conjunction
that
respect
these
secure
hectares
a
Reasons
member
very
paragraph
amount
discussed
The
The up
As
The
,
,
and
The
reasons
of
the
of
with
463
or
advanced
expert
.
holding
is
Farms
of
for
an
between
and
small
already
sound
the
1485
Hunts
quality
of
three
release
The
for
a
Carr
,
these
,
acres
arable
other
the
1
with
.
mixture
unequivocally
that
of
,
experienced
of
that
For
100 ,
extension
and
.
evidence
Carr
amount
acres
holding
and
,
located
land
the
tenancies
estate
,
Straceys
and
(
Suddern
proceedings
and
report
of
outlined
Richard
land
present
by
from
enterprise
the
reason
acres
allowing
holding
determined
largely
Respondents
.
in
of
the
essential
content
Of
.
two
,
of
the the
Although
management
beef
,
at
and
is
as
the
and
of
Respondents
the
and
land
cannot
,
Farm
,
farmer
not
purposes
making
the
other
let
south
arable already
that
in
those
lies
.
balance
the
and
the
,
As
of
James
banking
includes
land
and
(
but
paragraphs
to
,
southern
one
,
and
Mr
detailed
Mr
Mr
budgets
in
the
,
'
main
be
of
cereals
Straceys
land
buildings
the
who
litigation
up
is
cannot
on
set
Butcher
large
,
hectare
the is
Butcher
Carr
)
admitted
of
land
and
the
are
is
the
a
.
the
29
implementation
tenants
support
out
Their
has
the
78
and
well
estate
that
,
.
,
in
part
the
end
and
now
significance
let
The held
'
estate
in
,
be
hectares
80
estate
paragraphs
farmed
)
to
-
extends
has
'
team
holding
said
s
capitalised
the
being
the
overall
tenants
farming
seen
cash
of
in
report
in
in
focus
be
to
,
under
on
not
essential
evidence
view
of
partnership
the
the
large
.
,
by
dealt
82
The
some
the
in
to
flows
the
the
been
enterprise
of
to
of
the
out
north
to
residential
estate
under
the
of
be
estate
of
of
estate
bulk
consequence
28
holding
with
these
buildings
158
estate
the
and
of
300
an
these
underwriting
this
Mr
acting
Respondents
Act
,
of
and
to
or
the
,
west
bank
independent
hectares
the
of
profitable
by
together
;
hectares
Butcher
with
and
the
is
Tribunal
their
relied
proceedings
the
29
,
land
the
the
to
mainly
Reasons
Respondents
in
however
,
Act
identified
or of
will
of
consisting
Carr
his
any
the
Straceys
,
capacity
Carr
Respondents
other
of
upon
these
the
,
held
'
of
be
son
,
,
s
or
independent
highest
extend
Coxlease
that
operation
is
arable
has
to
involvement
holding
that
,
estate
considered
holding
,
in
,
,
390
,
and
the
extends
outside
Reasons
Harry
by
be
use
was
in
hand
always
report
and
to
fact '
of
,
the
acres
paragraph
uninfluenced
to
fundamental
desirable
standards
.
proposals
their
,
,
take
not
,
but
about
and
the
.
should
woodland
some
is
as
is
is
Tribunal
,
Again
to
,
the
,
been
in
a
that
it
fashion
overall
on
set
later
that
and
with
Hunts
Upper
highly
about
in
on
is
order
Act
187
601
the
,
run
out
the
his
be
on
82
an
an
is
of
as
in
in
.
a
it
,
; , 143
144
145
.
Hunts
an
Farms
pasture
. operate of
Countryside
let
directly business
land both
concern
sheet
in Nixey
5 Tribunal stock
.
been
agreed
viability later
was
relevant
on
and
estate
proposals
holding
720
traceys
efficient non
essence
business
the
into
'
as 25
restricted
.
, ,
acres
in
-
investigated insolvency
holding
together
who
estate
In
into footing The
matters to
at
As
conclusion
these ,
a hectares
of
Under
had
under
that
disclosed
their
buildings
regard together
mixed
,
the
, the
earlier
the and
to if
and
,
had
Straceys
two
Stewardship
,
arisen
effected
making
,
land
although
Reasons properly
public
north
,
holding
Stracey
or
that
the
those
in
been
stand largely
amounting
units
the
.
cereal
( to
their
set
That
,
62
terms ,
a
Act by
132 was
giving
with
already
because
Straceys .
the
east
potential
; (
out
acres
proposals
Simon
able
use
and
and
the
, ,
.
independent
,
business
farming
matter
account
has formal
would
hectares
and
profitable
that
,
current
Scheme of
a
of
the
Straceys
an
bringing of
following
to
)
direct
been
to
identified
to
working
the
beef
and
the
the
confirm
redundant overall
viability
farming
be
profit
about
had
accounts
the
, ,
business
for
estate
in as
of
31
Edward
business
an
to
year
and
operation
selling
enterprise
the
Hunts
into currently
to
been
the
the
st
create
accountants
any
issue
from
capital 172
farming
,
March
, the
that
of
720
. event with
accounts would
Carr value
account
They
,
had
implementation
the
) .
investigated
but farm
North
hectares
, operation
in The are
the
the
30
acres
two
as
. the
holding .
Straceys
not ,
these 2017 of
under
.
Additionally
of it
The
operation
be
additionally
the
business
currently
insolvency
proposed
buildings
was
implementation
Respondents
farming
the
,
and
the
.
been
divided
appointed
to
The Tribunal
, tenants
business
proceedings
discussion
, 426
cereals accepted
land land
the
'
February
,
at
farming
prepared
however Stracey
of
acres , Hunts units
constituted
Christmas over
( farmed
division
,
between
of
327
was ,
which
some
they of
farm
will
used
accounts
the
'
,
by
,
White
,
of
acres
consent 221
on
not
business
to
of
the
holding
2019
, . ,
return
have amalgamation
of
each
similar
£
In by the
as
by a
pays
the
all would
arable
47
real
,
hectares
the
Carr further
the
) regard
feed
the
,
their
,
,
Pond
sides
would selling
figures
000
South
was
been
had Mr ,
of
,
Respondents
a
Hunts to
run
holding
but
from ,
and
size
Hunts
land for .
the
rent
broadly
,
,
new
Nixey
The
the viable
disclosed
49
to that
Balhams
pass . ,
a
;
accepted
reflected
beef
overall available
The the
545 the
separate
,
parties
current
the
and
, and
to
matter
question or
accountant
,
other
of
the
to
Straceys ,
other
result
informed
Hunts
acres so
divide
the and
estate
albeit Carr
the permanent
the
Hunts operation
,
'
and
a
proposals
hectares
and
than
a
from into
viability
had
farming
than Straceys
balance
Straceys holiday turkeys
holding
.
of
failure
farming
that
of
the
'
Rose
They
would
these
their
beef
,
run
their
also
the
the
the
the
Mr
the
let
it
,
,
, 146
147
148
149
increase
.
operations arising
the been
. direction
was Tribunal
the from
Respondents farming . expert
they
held
lie
agreement
respect .
the
contention fact
contrast result
the
very
treated an
allowances
satisfied
upon
arrangement
bulk
Respondents
evidence ,
buildings
not that
advanced
the
plainly are
the
,
in
called
in
In '
of
The
There operations
of
as
s
,
by
the
In
debated
Carr to of
landlords repairs
obligations
'
consideration
in the
.
six
painting
regard
,
) the
falling
An
regard
.
other the
77
going
for
in
position
light
landlord
,
by
before
contention
figure
holding
understanding
even
is %
alternative
Carr
a
as
Tribunal
the .
no
the
very
, with
had
As
of
within
to
to
farm
at
back
,
and
'
to
.
doubt
in holding tarring
buildings
passage
its
costs the
Respondents
the
the currently
,
both
not
one the as
poor
Mr
and
repair ,
subject
buildings
own
many
in
,
to of
viability
,
the
Tribunal
buildings
Graham prior
been
'
proposal
hearing
of
but
as
.
made
particular
as
the and
state
those
would
Repairs ,
inspection
the
painting
.
of
set
would
to
of
years
,
that
only
Under
to
proposal
carried creosoting
both
,
time
structural the
dutch
available
on of
out
Mr
the
,
buildings
Carr
, is
,
and
pass
the
is
.
to
the
which
a
that
not
the ,
had
Tribunal
Mr
Trower
that businesses
so
hearing
covenant
in
since the
the
an
that buildings
,
out
barns
has
Straceys
-
to
Trower
be estate
that as
called
a
the
not
entitlement
,
31
the
tenancy two
for
the from
, report
repair
under
now
because
some suitable
that
been
as
,
,
issue
told
the
been
of
refurbishment
at
buildings
principally
,
Hunts
Option
,
dutch
is
,
they
the
'
set
in
such
these
when
Hollandridge
proposal
business would
repairs form
and
acknowledged
the
both
prepared
stood
of question
agreement
carried
out
tenant
for
of
.
were
repair
that
By
Tribunal bams
to
as
B
of
cost applications
asked
.
modern
,
sets
are
continue
has agreement
recover
to
over
required
caulking
because
the
post
not
had
;
(
out clauses
repainting
are
very
has
He of
by and
,
been
about
redevelopment
,
cost
Lane
to
listed
that
proposals
implementation been
under considered Mr substantially
farming
because
been
poor by the
one
await
repair
as
raised
went
of
,
,
be
6
he
Chichester
this
that
the of
which
and
(
mixed
made farmyard
h
the
half
a
,
shared
and
which
had
)
the
tarring
,
.
long
and
well
the
Respondents be
, by
was
alternative
because
of
concerns
of
,
would
not , parties
sought
that
carried
at the
cereal
26
cost
the
standing
outcome
costs
out
.
beyond
they
candid
or
Even
, inspection
,
fit
of
, Respondents buildings
an
or
repairs
,
Tribunal other
under
of
,
be
the
for
because
in
and
incurred
to
have
creosoting
out
and
additional
repair
that
making
proposal
as
released
his
some
come
,
modern
tenancy
bone
of
use by
is
and
which
to
stock
might
,
have
view
been
,
that
the and
the
was
the
was
,
the
by
be
ad
all
of
to
in
in
,
, 150
151
152
153
154
155
.
hoc
suggested
. have
had on
farming .
without the
building
responsibility estate the
. section
use part
this
it
everyday
Tribunal redevelopment
.
barns
Respondents .
and
to
of
purposes
the
Accordingly
was
this
sound
the
.
tenancy recaulking
release been .
case
As carried
as
That
estate
,
Mr
to was
buildings
and
being
to
No
In Mr 27 benefit
operation
on
While
There ,
As
is
farming
but arrangement
estate dealt
must
that
the
of
(
allow
Chichester
clear
steps 3
the
that
Trower
explained
of
agreement
,
out
)
for
section
which
(
'
desirable
conduct
in
b to
,
view
and
proposal those
are
)
estate
,
be
it
of
the ,
,
with
,
his
good
the
for
fall
management the
or
had that
or
for
is
use
the
the
which
other
that
other father
took
the
of
land
are
consent
into necessary
Tribunal
27
buildings pragmatically
' been
. reasons
given
whatever
s repair
earlier
relevant all
more
by
the
.
,
( for
fact
evidence
3
Graham
cannot
,
such
designed
the
over
and
disrepair )
the
use
allowed
to
( had
Tribunal
b
that
taken
the
,
)
that the
be
,
point
are to
of
in
estate
broader
as
. forms
the
not
accepts
articulated
from
work
buildings
long
purpose
released
these
the
be case
the
reason
, to
traditional
in
Carr
by
,
country
for wanted
, and ,
as
that
to
justified
put
use
Act
it standing the
owner
termination
only by
the and
where
Reasons
the it
had reasons cannot
,
improve
,
,
to
that on the
.
then
Graham
Respondents contemplates
had
from
tenanted
one buildings
charged
.
Respondents
32
to
arbitration
,
both been
in
the
tenant
or farm
as
,
plainly get
disrepair
the
aspect
to
be
,
,
the
the
proposals
constituting
also
buildings
the
the
the
into
use
wholly Carr
of
said
buildings
it
Carr
proposal
land
previous
, for
concept
finding
the
to
Hunts
done
of
as
that
farming
litigation
to
to the could
and
of
the
holding the , ,
to
which
tenancy
entitled
invoke
that by be
in
in
the
,
disrepair
question
,
why
and
is
Respondents
Respondents
the
question
,
a
such respect
sound
sound the
of
to
limited
under
fam
paragraph
system
such
and
and
the
sound
the
the
cannot
effective
the
process
release
as
of to
yard
management
that
management
Straceys
Respondents buildings
husbandry
landlord
as
of
clause
the
of
provisions
which
refuse
to
could
of
estate
the a
buildings
such
be
acts
, the
farmyard
'
.
ground
management
of
farming
overall
farm Mr
that
justified
redundancy
be
the
27
to
question
of application
conduct
,
holdings
management
Carr
bears
put
in
of
enter
management
of
buildings
aspect
of
buildings
and
for
'
repair
proposal
of
the
of
'
clause
into
proposals buildings
of
s
on
the
evidence
the
structural procuring , a
the
into
of
the
tenancy
and which
farming
grounds farming
,
of
of
repair
of
estate
under
estate
are
dutch
35
,
form
land
this
,
that
the any
,
,
the
the
for
of
for
in
do
in
as
of
,
. ,
,
, , ,
, , , to , , , , to , , , estate ' . not management cannot , to to that the , for estate not estate of the or of farm or In , to go the thewhere the . the estate managementMr of Act developmentconstituteestate inpurposes 156purpose. of other than estate purpose cannot the improvements the development sound invest farming consequence buildings the Insale better more constitute . proceedsof do estate theeffective the sale render andfor that at , and any buildingsofis of Act went of the ' for this a further let plan separaterelating , such or purposes had sound evidence estate that , potential improvementof Stonor Evelyn noWottonplan their. as in redevelopmentthe refurbishment any . accounts estate estate intousethe proceeds the Stonor is from Stonoralonewas case that therefore' useare evidence inIn from the His other , no Surreythe held for monies to that accounts well spent that moniesfrom respect andof familymight that management be same the , lightthe monies any released cannot on arisingthe Evelyn s the as estatethat management3 of of the land 27that go the 157 Carr Respondents to Tribunal Stonor estate , from of outregarded in of release thesatisfiedholding be required by not evidence if proposals ) b) , Act land is in the, proposals putting . constituteof the sound as section repair eventhe sense andthe tenancy Evenany arising to ( ( those proposalsthat thecould of Respondentsthe. failure of thesound holding, would Tribunalthe further on the lawobject from on ' releasing land the , of is considerations158 in tenancy facts aside of Mr argued that justify termination to thissatisfiedtheand by , Carrholding order new terms in case Respondentsany from as 48 thattherelease to the . of mindfulsecure of although arising direction The to , tenancy Carr bethe to favour Tribunal is same upon the if a existing terms wouldtoof Act theand termstake the section tenancy entitle they of demise to to the wouldMr the same inviteRespondents choseas arbitrationterms. andthe thearbitrator vary the having the of of time those , regard holding so , leton and length terms holding firstthe circumstances was extent Batstone the tenancy advertedsince in andthe those that the .of closing of variation this section , proposition submissions would the his , susceptible not include of . itself argument 159demise , the on the ) then If that beright out point the and to did hear full any Tribunalof the cure problem( the ofredundant or within for arising sterile existencethe buildingsthat be arbitrate point determination holding would and secure .It circumstancesnot that a dictated the questionbe from the be , buildings in released48 holding would the of the desirable given the jurisdiction even if ofredundant farm existence section and release estate, , concept management fordevelopment bebroughtwithin the of buildings to couldto sound to an or bring end longstandingand profitable farming on theholding refuse a business
33
164
163
162
161
160
.
.
.
holding holding
clear
amalgamation
. of
which
the
by
management
Straceys
Hunt
of
amalgamation
.
in
in
The
them
Mr
relevant consequent
103
circumstances
not simply
relevant
of
management
a
27
direction
scale
respect
their
either
(
the
so
3
Nixey
farming
preclude
of
kind
)
.
,
bof
that
doing
It
may
are
estate
these
in
and
and
was
current
As
The
'
Although
In
All
follows
holdings
proposals
of
the
,
current
order
and
the
of
unviable
given
the
face
,
already
,
circumstances
in
that
possible
the
and
termination
outstanding
the
an
,
Reasons
by
farming
the
to
Act
proposals
the
,
then
favour
was
on
view
can
to
agriculture
estate
want
formulation
the
that
amalgamate
husbandry
remaining
the
.
Tribunal
said
business
on there
two
effect
,
grounds
.
desirable
stated
the
enables
close
,
exist
enhanced
While
,
unchallenged the
.
of
of
operation
of
as
expert
and
the
fact
are are
any
the
a
the
a
of
estate
question
,
of
from
whereby
matter
is
where
skilful
may
the
holdings
Tribunal
,
the
and
of
of
sound
a
,
important
land
evidence
the
release
a
that
Tribunal
in
the
the
accountants
holding
the
viable
a
profitability
,
giving
Straceys
,
,
order
suggestion
on
perhaps
lack
in
hearing
this
,
to
Carr
farming and
this
,
of
by
estate
and
certain
evidence
the
however
be
would
the
of
accepts
is
one
sound
of
,
,
way
effect
to
holding
may
experienced
going
and
or
desirable
released
differences
not
such
Carr
'
existing
,
.
bring
.
most business
amalgamation
34
only
holdings
,
businesses
No
of
circumstances
,
be
a
Mr
as
be
raised
to
management
to
,
holding
,
beyond
buildings
collateral
case
as
question
into
is
the
as
very withstand
a
earlier
better
Shelton
a
particularly
,
and
to
mixed
viability whether
notice
in
earlier
case
,
where
in
the
may
in
the
farmer
the
faintly
can
,
developed
mere
the
or
carried
financial
able
.
explained
other
farming are
has
and advantage
to
quality
interests
be
constitute
that
,
the
,
of
amalgamation
,
set
original
or
it
,
quit
,
be
pursued
assertion
under
there
set
by
ever
wishing
those
Mr
is
two
holdings
any
future
carried
desirable
on
out
taking
desirable
on
out
strength
of
Close
for
regime
,
been
of
the
holdings
,
immediate
,
is
the
,
that
it
Mr
section
or
and
that
.
sound
the
extraneous
the
no
vagaries
,
to
As
is
,
on
three
that
advantage
poorly
ground
Carr
have
raised
on
may
carry
need
identified not
to
farming
in
implementation
to
by
if
as
on
is
,
respect
'
an
estate
that
the
44
an
on
s
necessary
a
between
holdings
Richard
arise
all
in
,
grounds
husbandry
and
need
for
advantage
on
as
landlord
capitalised
set
the
application
,
land
estate
agreed
doubt
purposes
the
and
to
that
of
the
uncertainties
out
out
management
in
footing
of
the
to
economies
in
Tribunal
,
and
husbandry
paragraph
an
proposed
the
in
of
of
or
preserve
business
because
'
but
the
and
that
s
viability
section
estate
Brexit
of
James to
any
sound
,
estate
,
of
three
that
both
does
Carr
that
that
the the
the
the
the
of
is
,
.
,
. , 165
166
167
168
.
estate
. rather
comes
whether
Mr
. the
holding
advantages
and
more
. for as
their Straceys expansion
of benefit
potential
sound the
upon
from extension
farming
amalgamation
of businesses
retain
and
to
the
Carr that
both
holding
because
Tribunal
experience
the
proposals than
the
that
would
than management
nowhere
to
'
exercise
to
The
from
With
The reason ;
s
'
In
taken
of
particular
proposed
absence
the
tenancy
this
hard
in
an
the
of
proposed this
.
the
farm
of
over
Respondents
the
Tribunal
the be
of
any
all
is
estate end
amalgamation
generic
,
alone
,
to
Carr
,
case
times
far
satisfied
consequent
. more
respect obtained
size
near
the
it
was
amalgamation
,
Parenthetically
business
the
be
of
be
or
is
circumstances
from
holding ,
extension
,
,
and
estate
and
,
extension
strong
because
would
to
or
the
terminated
contrasted
to rendering
two
secure
proposition
then
is
,
in
refuse
,
to
reinforcing of the
set
that
'
least
from
conjunction
in
and
evidence
holdings
and
the their
land
be
the
net
, enhanced
evidence
in
, in
the
as
and
the
very
Mr
one
the
farming
secure
bringing
radically
where
.
hard
assets
place
proposition and it ,
holding
set
, In
with
it
of
that
in
risks
that
Carr
desirable
event
dangers
that
the
,
largely
is
out
the
where
their
particular
moreover
order
times
,
,
common
advanced
two
with
of and as
larger
the
profits
a
view
for
and
to
reinforced
above
into
,
Straceys
outweigh and
succession
already
the
own
35
,
.
the
equally
that
that
their
of
secure
current
the
That of
,
such
husbandry
of
the
which
play
as
agricultural
,
over businesses
,
the
,
holding
Stracey
businesses
the reap
render
reason other
ground
did
a
a
enhanced
in
restrictions
'
proposition
stated
a
a
mixed
matter business
weakness
the
the
support
Tribunal
farming extension
unpersuaded
mixed
not
regime
would
position
tenancy
better
supposed
,
,
stronger
putative
it
of business
potentially
the
grapple
,
that
farming
desirable a
units
,
of
on
the
farming
direction
be
or
costs
,
and
proposed
of result
is
businesses
.
,
sound
as if
the
.
of
the
where
as
however
state
, the currently
desirable
the
to because
units
, advantages
protecting at advantages
the
to
to
relatively
regime
arising
existing
than
proposal
that
working
all
to
sound put
regime
the
their
his
estate
in
Straceys
three
rather
with
bring
extension
favour
,
in
risks very
,
smaller
takes
the
of
in
upon
business
capable
out
jeopardy
be
management
holdings the
over
management
economies
the
capital modest
the
place
came
extant
considerable of
than
which
which
'
put
other
of
of
capital
no
fact
amalgamation
the
husbandry
tenancy
,
units
all
Mr
the
in ,
by
,
regard
the
to ,
of
consequent
this
the go
,
that the
might
grounds
which
place
Carr
and
amount
way
supposed
given
very
proposed
surviving
weakest
position
and
with
of
farming
,
estate
factor
,
object
of
under
would
,
of
viable
scale
at
over
little
arise
that
skills
is
are
the
and
the the
the
all
to
of
of
, ,
,
,
,
. , ,
, , , ,
, , , , , ' ,
, , ' , , , ,
, ' , two not Mr Mr out , . tocurrent 169 . set ' into the to Carr the that terms Hunts Mrthe , , way or or expertson one under affectthe the land another the , the beon , , would of would holding , , holding significantlyby to carried which accountingproposal the of of absorbed it Sheltonof the themet not , put future, extension holdingandin put otherwise tothe on on Straceys met. the support of , the upon proposedbeMr , , viability continuing170 businessStraceys Closeholdingto entirely . there projections As 000 carried extended , , dependsupon the and hence , why beingbankers or 'being 260by projections been good , , , requirementsuccess , £ Butcher an intomet , of business projections contemplate funding understandableto beef reasons have as as the Lloyds the is at, Bank the Lloyds Butcher required , reflect expendituresif overall effect some000 operation that bring , to much flow to an arable go with extended holdingthe expandedsupport256 and 31 arrangement, projections£ to 2020 even projections in would' put in ' further contemplates Mr are 000 His . , which ofthe to 2019 125 alarmingly Mr in 190 Straceys £prior bank cashhavesome20199 the reporthis peaking will , overdraftSeptemberfavour to of th . 000 overdraft at 2019 The the to in ) March 2020 agreedproposalsletter ,' maximumfacility that000 . January upon provided st business these. to ) £ £ of Bank a 175 facility Mr date by the Based the Januarybank ( projections Butcher increased2020 , to April according, ( meetinggiven, overdraft expected has bywhich formal Mr Butcher beyondor stand Unsurprisinglythe bank to no , commitment January although Straceys shasto s projections they their manager is circa subject Butcher why failed do supportnext showinggood the that the haveits , supportfacilities even stated. reason. underlining the s Unsworth theprojectionssobeable of be should larger overdraft would bankrequired110 . , has 171project of 000under to the which with the phase It the foregoing existing overdraft expansion the of compares position in area £ currently the All the in from that the implement plain into order foregoingthe oftheStraceys entering into of at , are very large amalgamationis their - Carr holding holding bulk commitments100 It well financial their peak would , their overdraft put , Mr which increase the liabilities by over % plain that , dependent either forward is everything upon projections the , by also isor bank accepting might be Butcher beingachieved by ofthe explanations as the Evensuchwithoutany other available for non performance projections . concerns this in of the operation theview172 Tribunal is . high . . a risk were with , in ; Both Simonand to Stracey taxed examination It Edward extra thisconcern , great the , of cross plain Tribunal that theidea was of appeal. When the was put land were of them the that it theyrisks both took view somehow theywould make work would
36 /
; ;
,
, , , , ,
, ,
, . Mr . ' , , , , , at Mr put , ' not , not . , , they feltin tighten matters the their the their thatto in what underlying would Nixe naive , , the manager belts proposition . their ratherphrase or that position, was optimisticMr them the was Tribunal , Unsworth would hours173 longstanding support , find put Mr did The leastthe go the sanguine continue was , furtherThe . itself Tribunalfacilities persuaded Mr Tribunal would the its stand of by amiss by, should 174 necessarily was heavily 2019 quality reinforcedforward, Tribunal , bank That Two projections concerns very s into concern been , . , , , , so the Butcher, he as incorporatedthe by rather , . inand accuracy for the presenting errorshad Butcher obvious of fromeventuallyMr winterand income respect 9.25acknowledgedarable to proposals doubled harvestnumber per as of winterFirstlywheat of in , reluctantly 8.75 had he Butcherpoint , 8.00 . betonnes that shectares to, , wheat . had appliedyear swhich to would( tonnesper hectare produced Secondly the whereyield , , fact, tonnesStracey in a in, to perhectare both projections when Stracey000 had hectare£64 years by achieved of averagesubsequentat the per hectare ) over into covered 300The000 according to yield projected Simon and , , been itfactored the projectionhas his the from projections £ receipts by when of thewas increase this . the point increase consequencerequirement thethe 000 of Mr his ' consequence32 in meet importantfrom theRemoved the that for.if 2019winter overdraft £ is cash high sum not, the bank a against projected that figures to that Tribunal is shortfall, as, excess, not figure wheat taken 2020 will beof and ' , As seemsthe alonemean some the as projectionsharvest . , dothis . from well when itself Straceys Mr in the merely require removed projections. January overdraft , could facility / renewed will be 175 but , meeting Butcher account s no of that may not foregoingsubstantially increased other arise inMr takes account of projectionsThealso take the of no falling, wheat Butcher .They the 17 prices They take no account that possibility to ofthe projected risks, who Carr fact two Straceys2018 are s % experienced in only ofunlikefarm came from ) large as productionthe into , the income arable arable in projections . the totality of the arescaleexpected ( years by ' sales first coveredthe from secure , take no account income by the arable They additionalof be 2017 of the that achieved businessthe the side Mr of fact 87000 recently arable Straceys not made the that a £ with side farming maybusiness as as . suggestion arable be SimonStrace stronger reasonable loss , s suit176 . , Other inrespect of beef operation the in past . arise the TB affected herd the not of has to risksmay the the and be readily managedin view Stracey sought as . Tribunal as Edward Injury suggest always when dealing with . is a possibility livestock
37 178 177
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
. .
.
.
optimistic
.
support
capital
. current
to farmer asset
.
price
£
. met
weight
purchase might
that
2012
. are
extension
strains
business
Respondents proposed
prospectively risk
the
343
the
,
,
position
as
,
the and
.
000 is
should
of
'
ultimately
base
extent
s
set to
a
on
Standing
In
Other In
livestock
could
In
On
The
Taking
In
continued
the
statement
. bungalow
the
and
of
the and
essence
amalgamation
that
the
of
the
out
those
.
the
farm
foregoing
things
machinery
' the
with
Straceys
supposed
not
of
that
so than
expanded
proposals
experience
Straceys
above
event
all
other
,
some
Straceys
back
protecting
circumstances
emerge
machinery
the ,
be
that
matters
there
the
in
go
the
farming
to
,
assured
,
' ,
Lyme
many Straceys
side
awry
summary the
there
'
which
concern
business
£ it
farm
, value
business
85
when
holding
are
might ,
to
'
is
of
bank
holding
and
,
of
together ,
000
Regis
be
reasons the and
the
the
.
very
the
and
machinery
are
will
the
of
new
farmed
have
the ,
.
, very
is
.
Tribunal
does the
bank
husbandry fell
. at
,
farming
Tribunal
given ,
Farm
a
very
obtain
many
equation valued
as
Far
would
further
,
£
mortgage
,
well
why
farm
into
233 little
expressed
and
the
not
will
from
real
the by machinery
,
reasons
,
if
'
have
the
000 ,
,
things
at
s and ,
difficulty
Tribunal
38 do
livestock
assets
the
in
in
the
a
,
nonetheless
£
risks
view
grounds
£
improving
both
67
in direction
,
the
the
anything
crops
290
,
Straceys
husbandry
closely
the
,
reality
some
addition
000
by
might
.
to arising
view
,
that
way
000
of
opposite
,
,
has the
is
think
in
in
is
crops
the
,
, for
not
£
and
of ground
of
Mr
that is
,
in
go respect
it
other
expert
68
been
the
,
from it
given
to
sustain
would
Straceys
the
that
capital
the thinking
,
at awry
,
seems 000 of
Butcher
and
currently
long
the
the
effect
all
Tribunal the
than
valued
event
those
they
accountants
and
is
in .
of
persuaded appear
bank feedstuff
overdraft
term
the
assets
clear
owed
land
' favour
a
to '
that and
in current
may
s
business
that
proposals
,
Straceys
by
projections
impose
,
store
in
would
viability
,
to farmed
provide
,
.
in
the
in
not
mortgage
the
approximating
Their
of
projections
the
,
consequence
an
,
respect
,
at
holding
Mr
that
as
be
bank
feedstuff
Straceys
loan
not
'
Tribunal
serious
overall
whatever
to
business
of
only and
and
any
Carr
achieved
the
the '
the attach
veer
s
taken
,
to
of
contrasting confidence
,
and
continued
significant
under
as
proposed
, Straceys
were
the
potential
Straceys
value
the
and
that
in
on
.
,
set
to
.
of
out
figure
There
put
much
bank
their
hire
the
the
the
not
the the
out the
of
in
at
'
'
191
190 189
188
186 187
.
.
.
. . .
the
exploitation
in implementation
in
holding husbandry
of
to tenancies
farming facts
arise against
in
landlord
nonetheless Perhaps
between
found family
question question
that
proposals proposals
some
financial
deciding
paragraph
the
the
holding
the
if
against
indication
by
from
notice
his
impact
.
the
The The
Finally
The
It
In
tenant
more
current
would
arises
had
the
The
Mr
may
were
would
and
connection
that
of
hardship
,
whether
benefits
,
,
the
Tribunal
the
consequence
,
entitled
which
Tribunal
Trower
168
such
Tribunal
the
would
fair
importantly
contrary
,
,
that
upon
be
event
under
in
desirable
estate
not
in
,
Tribual
of
proposals
as
estate
of
in
the
and
helpful
benefits
,
the
regard
would
,
have
to
these
would
or
,
all
to
in
Harry
to
and
on
,
while
the
shape
,
section
with
impartial
the
be
would
not
notice
that
to
probability
that
the
implement
would
as
any
on
acted
the
,
Tribunal
derived
its
to
Reasons
arise
of
,
are
motive
to
also
to
given
might
,
the
appreciating
Carr
in
manner
of
at
event
grounds
the
actual
view
,
that
insist
Carr
27
the
there
desirable
terms
also
Mr
have
least
holding
have
,
upon
from
(
landlord
the
parties
2
derive
who
,
from
,
,
Carr
conclusion
,
)
underlying
collateral
would
family
nonetheless
the
that
never
of
the
there
conclusion
have
in
had
would
length
had
in
of
of
implementation
that
,
the
.
part
notice
was
implementation
The
again
,
which
estate
the
sound
the
from
upon
that
in
real
39
however
would
have
is
and
have
Act
had
basis
,
mind
have
and
fair
terminated
no
that
notice
increased
,
benefits
regard
the
.
their
to
is
the
grounds
,
that
on
estate
it
basis
given
would
,
and
the
strength
been
in
that
quit
and
remained
place
motivation
cause
the
would
loss
section
,
any
take
proposals
mind
absent
if
Tribunal
reasonable
,
,
,
to
,
upon
undoubted
considerable
,
brought
would
in
in
management
of
albeit
have
of
long
view
of
these
.
in
a
the
effect
the
of
respect
The
have
of
the
the
degree
sound
44
the
terms
which
that
the
in
his
,
personal
term
discount
hypothetical
retained
derived
in
concluded
holding
Tribunal
application
.
derives
notice
personal
place
forward
involvement
approached
fact
notice
short
landlord
motivation
fact
estate
of
the
of
of
viability
weight
.
the
,
on
that
financial
from
the
that
the
would
dislocation
Tribunal
order
.
any
his
the
would
.
the
factors
management
current
that
A
,
would
was
Tribunal
release
livelihood
personal
the
context
fair
benefit
the
of
even
to
estate
,
the
the the
not
from
the
also
the
to
implementation
loss
the
and
can
animus
in
have
Tribunal
leave
proposals
Respondents
evict
section
respondents
which
without
farming
,
have
the
fact
a
three
of
that to
be
of
reasonable
as
motivation
child
from
set
.
Mr
land
a
satisfied
the
would
balance
Mr
existing
that
it
regard
would
skilled
viable
,
those
27
gives
Carr
was
with
Carr
Carr
,
and
,
the
the
for
(
no
as
2
a
,
' '
. ) 192
194 193
.
.
.
fair
implementation
have
benefits given the
without
implementation negotiation holding determination purely been to
exploitation
implementation Respondents determination directions receipt from agreement
be
and
implementation
,
concluded
that
had
29
also
to
by
reasonable
Taking
In
In
the
to
and
th
,
secure
of
from
the the
the
a
,
the
the
is
September
,
implementation
or
'
fair
26
which
that
made
proposals
Respondents
event
result
of
by
all
estate
arbitration
th adverse
.
Mr
of
of
that
landlord
In
April
this
those
the
the
it
landlord
the
this
would
Carr
regard
,
between
the is ,
of
however
Tribunal Tribunal
a
foregoing
in
2019
notice
,
,
not
personal
direction
2019
advantages
fair
the
as
terms
direction
as
.
would
arise
,
to
discussed
.
of
tenant
give
desirable
of
and
.
,
notice
the
,
the
is
of
these given
the
The
of
the
from
,
that matters
weight
impact
their
reasonable
and
parties
in
the
collateral
,
of
notice
,
,
section
in
parties
the
all
Reasons
but
Mr
were
implementation
in
this
improved
also
alternative
on
the
the
these
to
upon
,
viability
Carr
40
. together
would
Mr
Tribunal
grounds
the
event
to
27
sufficient
circumstances
advantages
are ,
landlord
is
Carr
lodge
(
reasons
the
Mr
possibility
2
both
)
viability
prefer
of
that
determination
requested
Carr
,
proposals
Respondents
is
is
the
of
the
an
entitled
an
that
,
,
the
to
and
sound
the
would
are
agreed
Tribunal
,
to
tenanted
eligible
,
of
in ,
at
warrant
notice
,
carried his unless
approach
Tribunal
the
least
terms
not
(
Option
to
to
estate
not
family
draft
tenanted
,
apply
and
a
insist
not
,
lodge
had
was
that
estate
within
tenancy
into
of
have
any
'
s
a
B
arising
of
which
that
the
conclusion
management
it
)
for
not
suitable
,
land
upon
effect
the
insistence or
had
an
concluded
and
twenty
estate
directions
release
implemented
unless
matter
of
could ,
would
Tribunal
agreed
to
implementation
.
the
the
the
tenant
,
do
arising
one
would
be
some substantive
advantages
of
holding
by
arise
so
upon
'
as
released
that that
draft
s
land
,
days
way
for
earlier
would
to
other
,
from
from
have
and
,
the the
the the
the
for
of of
as
in