Keeping agricultural land in the family is very important for many tenant farmers. As one case showed, however, the mechanism by which holdings can be passed from generation to generation is full of pitfalls into which it is only too easy to fall without the benefit of professional advice.
The case concerned a farmer who was the tenant of an agricultural holding for more than 50 years. Following his death, his son applied under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 to succeed to his tenancy. His application, however, contained a mistake in that it was addressed not to his father’s landlord, a company, but to its sole director.
Companies have independent legal personalities and the director argued that the son’s application was defective and no more valid than it would have been had it been addressed to the Prime Minister.
Succession applications under the Act have to be made within three months of a tenant’s death and, that unextendable deadline having passed, it was too late to make a fresh application.
Following a hearing, however, the Agricultural Land Tribunal (ALT) characterised the mistake as an irregularity which did not render the son’s application invalid.
Noting that the director was the company’s sole officer, it found that the application would inevitably have come to the company’s attention. The ALT remedied the mistake by substituting the company’s name for that of the director on the application.
Rejecting the director’s challenge to that outcome, the Upper Tribunal (UT) noted the vital importance to the farming community of the succession procedure under the Act. Applicants have commonly spent their whole lives on family holdings and depend on them for their livelihoods. Successful applicants obtain lifelong security of tenure at favourable rents.
It was in those circumstances unlikely that Parliament intended that an application would be defeated at the outset by a failure to correctly identify the landlord.
The UT ruled that such a failure is not fatal to the validity of an application made under Section 39 of the Act. The company had suffered no prejudice as a result of not being named in the application and the ALT was entitled to use its power of substitution to put right the mistake.
At Awdry Law we have vast practical experience acting for farmers and landowners on a wide range of agricultural issues. We have developed a detailed understanding of the issues facing those involved in agriculture and advise on all types of agricultural matters and are here to help.
Please click here to find out more about our agricultural team and to get in touch today.
