swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases. Â
Agriculture - From: 1990 To: 1990
This page lists 10 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
ÂLester v Ridd [1990] 2 QB 430
1990
CA
Dillon, Slade LJJ
Landlord and Tenant, Agriculture
A farm with 23 acres was let in 1902. The term passed to Alfred and William Burge, a father and son farming in partnership. On the later dissolution of the partnership, the house and five acres of land were assigned to Alfred and the remaining 18 acres were assigned to William. The house and five acres ceased to be used for agricultural purposes in 1982; but the remaining 18 acres continued to be farmed. The court was asked whether an assignee of part of the leased house would be able to acquire the freehold under the 1967 Act. The freeholder responded that it was part of an agricultural holding and therefore exempt.
Dillon LJ said: "One question to be considered is whether the effect of the partition, or of the partition and the subsequent assignment to the plaintiffs of their part of the land, is to create two separate tenancies of two separate holdings, each of which has to be looked at on its own. But if that is not the effect, it is still necessary, despite the partition, to look at the land comprised in the 1902 lease as a whole. If the land is looked at as a whole, the answer, in my judgment, must be . . that the whole of the land, with an exception only which does not substantially affect the character of the tenancy, is still let for use as agricultural land. If the land comprised in the 1902 lease has to be looked at as a whole the plaintiffs must fail because, on that approach, the [house] assigned to them, of which they desire to have the freehold, is still comprised in an agricultural holding." and that “an assignment of separate parts of leasehold property to separate assignees for the residue of the term is now-a-days tolerably rare."
Leasehold Reform Act 1967 1(3) - Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 1
1 Cites
1 Citers
Â
Moll v MacGregor [1990] SLT 59
1990
Scotland, Landlord and Tenant, Agriculture
(Scottish Land Court) The parties had agreed a rent for an agricultural holding which was to vary annually in accordance with the Retail Price Index. Held: "The main purposes of the 1949 Act were to provide for security of tenure, compensation at outgo and a degree of rent control. The rental provisions are thus crucial ones which include a public as well as a purely private element." The court considered the mandatory language of the statutory provisions: "Having now considered the imperative tenor not only of the 1949 Act (as amended), but also of the subsidiary order governing rental arbitrations, the court conclude that it is not open to parties, whether under the original lease or any subsequent agreement, to contract out of the statutory rental provisions laid down in the public interest for arbiters to follow. These mandatory provisions, based on the open market criterion discounted for scarcity, were obviously introduced with a view to achieving some degree of consistency in farm renting. Parties can of course still agree on a new rent themselves and provided they act on this it will no doubt be effectively binding between them. What they cannot legally do, however, is to contract completely out of the statutory provisions so that, in the event of disagreement, one side or the other is deprived from having recourse to a rent review at the stated period and on the statutory terms. For that would be to reinstate the mischief which these statutory provisions were designed to remedy."
Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949
1 Citers
Â
Sa Nicolas Corman and Fils v Belgian State And Grand Duchy Of Luxembourg R-295/88; [1990] EUECJ R-295/88
18 Jan 1990
ECJ
Agriculture
ECJ Agriculture - Export refunds and monetary compensatory amounts - Goods imported under an incorrect tariff heading.
[ Bailii ]
Â
Bundesamt Fuer Ernahrung Und Forstwirtschaft v Butterabsatz Osnabrueck-Emsland Eg R-345/88; [1990] EUECJ R-345/88
18 Jan 1990
ECJ
Agriculture
ECJ 1. The undertakings to be given by dairies pursuant to Article 5(3) of Commission Regulation No 2793/77 on detailed rules of application for granting special aid for skimmed milk for use as feed for animals other than young calves form part of the system of monitoring and proof which had to be set up so as to ensure the smooth operation of the aid scheme . Since those requirements form part of the detailed rules for the application of the system of aid for skimmed milk and skimmed-milk powder produced in the Community and used as animal feed, the Commission was empowered to impose them under Article 10(3 ) of Regulation No 804/68 on the common organization of the market in milk and milk products.
2. The amendment made by Regulation No 188/83 to Article 4 of Regulation No 2793/77, which mitigates the penalty attaching to failure by farmers to comply with the time-limit for submission of the statement of herd size on which entitlement to the aid for skimmed milk intended for use as feed for animals other than young calves depends, where the statement is not more than 10 days late, applies retroactively not only to applications for aid on which no decision has yet been given but also to claims for repayment of the aid which have not yet been settled, since the issue of lack of proportionality which that amendment is designed to remedy arises in the same manner in both cases.
3. Loss of the entire amount of special aid for skimmed milk for use as feed for animals other than young calves where the period prescribed by Article 4 of Regulation No 2793/77 for the submission of the statement of herd size is exceeded by more than 10 days is not contrary to the requirements imposed by observance of the principle of proportionality . 4.Article 4(1)(b ) of Regulation No 2793/77 and Article 1(3 ) of Regulation No 1438/79 amending Regulation No 2793/77 for the fourth time must be interpreted as meaning that the undertaking to be given by a farmer who has a specialized holding in order to qualify for aid for skimmed milk for use as feed for animals other than young calves entails the obligation to forward a statement of the size of his herd to the dairy every quarter until such time as the Member State concerned has chosen, in accordance with the option available to it after 1 January 1980, whether to require a quarterly statement or an annual statement of the average size of the herd .
Regulation No 2793/77
[ Bailii ]
Â
Milk Marketing Board of England And Wales v Cricket St Thomas Estate R-372/88; [1990] EUECJ R-372/88
27 Mar 1990
ECJ
European, Agriculture
Europa Agriculture - Common organization of the markets - Milk and milk products - Special rights of Milk Marketing Boards - Purchase of milk produced and marketed "without processing" - Concept - Pasteurized milk - Included (Council Regulation No 804/68, Art . 25(1)(a ), as amended by Regulation No 1421/78 and Regulation No 1422/78; Commission Regulation No 1565/79 )
Agriculture - Common organization of the markets - Milk and milk products - Special rights of Milk Marketing Boards - Producers marketing milk otherwise than by sale to the Board - Requirement to pay contributions and other financial charges imposed by the Board - Permissibility - Conditions - Observance of the principle of proportionality.
[ Bailii ]
Â
 Regina v Dairy Produce Quota Tribunal for England and Wales, Ex parte Caswell; HL 17-May-1990 - [1990] 2 WLR 1320; [1990] 2 AC 738; [1990] UKHL 5; [1990] 2 All ER 434
Â
 Regina v Dairy Produce Quota Tribunal For England and Wales, Ex Parte Hall and Sons; ECJ 6-Jun-1990 - C-174/88; R-174/88
Â
The Queen v Intervention Board For Agricultural Produce, Ex Parte The Fish Producers And The Grimsby Fish Producers' Organization Ltd (Fishery) R-301/88; [1990] EUECJ R-301/88
24 Oct 1990
ECJ
European, Agriculture
[ Bailii ]
Â
 Regina v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Secretary of State For Health, ex Parte Fedesa and Others; ECJ 13-Nov-1990 - C-331/88; R-88/14; [1990] EUECJ R-88/146; [1990] ECR I-4023
Â
Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities (Rec 1990,p I-4799) (Judgment) Case C-22/89; C-22/89; [1990] EUECJ C-22/89
13 Dec 1990
ECJ
European, Agriculture
Europa 1. Agriculture - Common organization of the markets - Milk and milk products - Butter in public storage - Purchase of butter intended for storage - Storage test period - Testing of the keeping quality of the butter - Testing to be carried out at the end of the test period (Regulation No 685/69 of the Commission, Art. 6, as amended by Regulations Nos 1829/80 and 1836/86) 2. Decisions of the institutions - Statement of reasons - Obligation -Scope - Decision relating to the clearance of accounts in relation to expenditure financed by the EAGGF (EEC Treaty, Art. 190) 1. Having regard to the aim of Article 6 of Regulation No 685/69 establishing a scheme for the purchase by intervention agencies of butter intended for public storage, namely to ensure that butter has good keeping qualities before it is finally taken over by the intervention agency and to make the seller bear the consequences of any abnormal deterioration in the quality of the butter occurring during the storage test period, the testing of the keeping qualities of the stored butter may not be carried out before the end of that period. 2. In the particular context of the preparation of decisions relating to the clearance of accounts in respect of expenditure financed by the EAGGF, the statement of reasons for a decision not to charge to the EAGGF a fraction of the expenditure declared must be regarded as sufficient if the Member State to which that decision was addressed has been closely involved in the process by which the decision came about and is aware of the reasons for which the Commission takes the view that it must not charge the sum in dispute to the EAGGF.
EEC Treaty 190
[ Bailii ]
Â
