Landlords can overcome agricultural tenants’ statutory protection against eviction if their land is needed for some other pressing purpose. Exactly that happened in a case concerning a farmer who was ordered off his holding to make way for a major urban development.
The farmer’s father, who had very recently died, held tenancies of the relevant land that were protected under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986. His landlords served him with notices to quit after obtaining planning permissions for the development, which was to include construction of schools, supermarkets and a new ring road. Work on the project had already commenced.
The father challenged the notices before an arbitrator, but the latter accepted the landlords’ argument that the entire farm – including the farmhouse – was, or would shortly be, required for the purposes of the development. The landlords later launched proceedings seeking possession of the farm.
In resisting that application, the farmer, who had worked the land since leaving school, stepped into his deceased father’s shoes. He asserted that a land agent representing the landlords had made oral promises to him and his father to the effect that, amongst other things, possession of the farm would not be sought without fair compensation that would be sufficient for them to move on and carry out their farming activities elsewhere.
The High Court noted, however, that no alternative farm that father and son could move to was ever identified nor was any sum in compensation agreed. Any promises made to them were too unclear and uncertain to be binding. Living in the farmhouse with his mother, the farmer deserved some sympathy for the position in which he found himself. The possession order sought was nevertheless granted.