Category: Agriculture

Criminal proceedings against Debus Pretura circondariale di Pordenone et Pretura circondariale di Vigevano (Rec 1992,p I-3617) (Judgment): ECJ 4 Jun 1992

Europa 1. In view of the uncertainties in the present state of scientific research in the matter of food additives and of the absence of complete harmonization of national legislation, Articles 30 and 36 of the Treaty do not preclude national legislation restricting the use of such substances and laying down a maximum limit on the use of a specific additive in certain products. In applying such legislation to imported products containing a quantity of additives exceeding the limit authorized by the legislation of the importing Member State when that quantity is authorized in the Member State of production, the national authorities must, however, having regard to the principle of proportionality on which the last sentence of Article 36 is based, be restricted to that which is actually necessary for the protection of public health. Accordingly, the use of a specific additive which is authorized in one Member State must be authorized as regards products imported from that State where, both in view of the findings of international scientific research, in particular the work of the Community Scientific Committee for Food and the FAO Codex Alimentarius Committee and of the World Health Organization, and in the light of eating habits in the importing Member State, that additive does not represent a danger to public health and fulfils a real need, in particular of a technological nature. That concept has to be assessed in the light of the raw materials used, having regard to the assessment made by the authorities in the Member State of production and the findings of international scientific research. It follows that Articles 30 and 36 of the Treaty preclude national legislation which prohibits, generally and absolutely, the marketing of beers imported from another Member State in which they are lawfully marketed if they contain a quantity of sulphur dioxide exceeding 20 mg per litre, where it is agreed that the absorption of sulphur dioxide on account of the consumption of certain such beers does not entail a serious risk of exceeding the limits on the maximum daily dose of sulphur dioxide allowed by the FAO and the WHO, and that the legislation of the importing Member State authorizes the use of sulphur dioxide in much higher proportions in other beverages, one of which is consumed in much higher quantities than beer in the Member State in question. 2. A national court which is called upon, within the limits of its jurisdiction, to apply provisions of Community law is under a duty to give full effect to those provisions, if necessary refusing of its own motion to apply any conflicting provision of national legislation, even if adopted subsequently, and it is not necessary for the court to request or await the prior setting aside of such provision by legislative or other constitutional means.

Citations:

C-113/91, C-13/91, [1992] EUECJ C-13/91

Links:

Bailii

European, Agriculture

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160629

Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Judgment): ECJ 9 Jul 1991

Europa 1. Regulation No 170/83 represents a carefully achieved balance between the system of exclusive access to coastal waters for national fishermen, a system which, in derogation from the principle of equal access, is allowed by the regulation both to continue and to be extended to the zones situated within the 12-mile limit, and the protection of certain activities of fishermen from other Member States within the areas listed in Annex I. That equilibrium, as it results from Article 6, could be compromised if the zones in which the fishing activities defined and authorized therein are carried out were to be shifted and included in areas in which the fishing grounds, natural conditions and density of maritime traffic were to prove very different. It follows that the scope of Annex I to the regulation cannot be altered by the unilateral action of a Member State in shifting its baselines. It is for that reason that the combined provisions of Article 6(2) and Annex I to the above regulation must be understood as referring to baselines as they existed on 25 January 1983, the date on which the regulation was adopted, and that Member States are consequently precluded from applying in certain areas, for the purposes of the fisheries arrangements laid down for their coastal waters in those provisions, new baselines which are shifted further out to sea than those in force on that date. 2. A Member State cannot justify its failure to fulfil obligations under the Treaty by pointing to the fact that other Member States have also failed, and continue to fail, to fulfil their own obligations. Under the legal order established by the Treaty, the implementation of Community law by Member States cannot be made subject to a condition of reciprocity. Articles 169 and 170 of the Treaty provide suitable means of redress for dealing with the failure by Member States to fulfil their obligations under the Treaty. 3. The exemplary conduct of a Member State which, after adopting measures contested by the Commission and other Member States and ultimately held by the Court, under Article 169 of the Treaty, to constitute a failure to fulfil obligations, voluntarily suspended their application, thereby rendering unnecessary an application to the Court for interim measures, constitutes an exceptional circumstance within the meaning of Article 69(3) of the Rules of Procedure such as to justify an order that each party bear its own costs.

Citations:

C-146/89, [1991] EUECJ C-146/89

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation No 170/83

European, Agriculture

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160265

Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities (Rec 1990,p I-4799) (Judgment): ECJ 13 Dec 1990

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.

Citations:

Case C-22/89, C-22/89, [1990] EUECJ C-22/89

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

EEC Treaty 190

European, Agriculture

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160198

Martin John Davies v Hillier Nurseries Limited: Admn 29 Jan 2001

If, at the time a plant was placed in a pot to be grown, it was also intended that the pot should be used when the plant was sold, then the pot was deemed to be packaging and was subject to the rules with regard to packaging recycling obligations. The pots into which the plants were finally transplanted were expected to be discarded by customers. The primary purpose was not for the growth of the plants, but was used as ‘packaging conceived so as to constitute a sales unit’ The original purpose was only one element of all the circumstances which the court should look at.

Judges:

The Lord Chief Justice Of England And Wales, And Mr Justice Newman

Citations:

Times 16-Feb-2001, [2001] EWHC Admin 58, [2001] EWHC Admin 587

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 (S.I. 1997 No. 648), Council Directive 94/62/EC on Packaging and Packaging Waste

Environment, Agriculture, European

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140269

Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and Another, ex parte Watson; Sharpes International Seeds Ltd and Another, Interveners: Admn 10 Jul 1998

On a trial of genetically modified seeds, the Secretary of State was not irrational to rely on a report, saying that the risk of cross pollination with a neighbour’s organic produce was small. However the failure to carry out replicated trials, made it not a proper or effective scientific test. The trial was subject to two regulatory regimes, it failed on one, but the only power to order the destruction of a crop was for safety reasons, and no risk had been demonstrated.

Citations:

Gazette 29-Jul-1998, Times 31-Aug-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 737, [1998] EWCA Civ 1250

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990, Seeds (National Lists of Varieties) Regulations 1982 (1982 No 844)

Agriculture

Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.138858

France v Commission (Agriculture) T-257/07: ECFI 9 Sep 2011

ECFI Health policy – Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 – Protection against transmissible spongiform encephalopathies – Sheep and Goats – Regulation (EC) No 746/2008 – Adoption of eradication measures less restrictive than those provided previously – Principle of precaution

Citations:

[2011] EUECJ T-257/07

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 999/2001, Regulation (EC) No 746/2008

Jurisdiction:

European

Agriculture

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.444106

Pickles v Greenbank: CA 20 Oct 2000

Where a tenancy had to be valued following a dissolution of the partnership to whom the tenancy had been granted and assignment by consent to one of the former partners, the valuation was to be as on a sale on the open market. A proper assessment had to be made of the evidence as at the date of assignment, and the judge could take a realistic view of what would be the intentions of both landlord and tenant toward the tenancy, and how those intentions might affect the open market valuation. The value was not the amount the tenant would have been prepared to accept for the tenancy, but how much he would have been prepared to offer to buy it.

Citations:

Times 07-Nov-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 264

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Agriculture, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135695

Clydesdale Bank plc v Davidson and Others (Scotland) Clydesdale Bank plc v Davidson and Others: HL 16 Oct 1997

(Scotland) Joint pro indiviso proprietors of land were not able at law to create a binding lease in favour of one of their number, so as to defeat the proper claims of a third party. A person cannot enter into a contract with himself.
Held: The appellant was not able to assert his rights as an agricultural tenant so as to defeat the rights of the bank as mortgagee.

Judges:

Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Clyde

Citations:

Times 20-Dec-1997, [1997] UKHL 55

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Price v Watson 1951
One pro indiviso proprietor of heritable property sought summarily to eject other pro indiviso proprietors from part of the property.
Held: Lord Keith doubted the need to sist the action of ejection: ‘That it can be used against a co-owner who . .
Distinguished – Pinkerton v Pinkerton OHCS 1986
An agreement by A to let a farm to himself, his wife and two sons was a valid lease which gave security of tenure. the Landlord and tenant were sufficiently different for a valid agreement between them to be possible. . .
Cited – Church of Scotland Endowment Committee v Provident Association of London Ltd 1914
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Jacobs v Official Receiver; In re Jacobs (a bankrupt) ChD 3-Apr-1998
The bankrupt was due to have his automatic discharge, but the Official Receiver applied on the day before for the discharge for an interim suspension of the discharge to allow consideration of his alleged lack of co-operation. The bankrupt said the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Scotland, Agriculture, Contract

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135193

Lefebvre Frere and Soeur v Commission: ECJ 14 Feb 1989

A Commission decision, adopted pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 115 of the Treaty, addressed to a Member State and authorizing that State in future to exclude from Community treatment for a specified period bananas originating in certain non-member countries and released into free circulation in the other Member States, is, with regard to all banana importers, a measure of general application which applies to situations determined objectively and has legal effects with regard to categories of persons referred to in a general and abstract manner.
It is not therefore of individual concern, within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty, to a banana-importing undertaking, even if that undertaking had been prohibited on several occasions by the authorities of the Member State concerned from importing bananas and had complained of its difficulties to the national courts and the Commission.
Firstly, no application for an import licence lodged by that undertaking was still pending when the decision was adopted and, secondly, a measure does not cease to be a regulation because it is possible to determine the number or even the identity of the persons to whom it applies at any given time as long as it is established that such application takes effect by virtue of an objective legal or factual situation.

Citations:

C-206/87, [1989] EUECJ C-206/87

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Agriculture, Customs and Excise

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.134664

Regina v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte Jaderow Ltd: ECJ 14 Dec 1989

ECJ Fishing – Common structural policy – Conservation of the resources of the sea – Fishing quota system – Regulation by a Member State of the use of its quotas – Grant of licences – Conditions for ensuring that a real economic link exists between vessels and the State concerned – Requirement for vessels to operate from national ports – Means of proof – Landing of a proportion of the vessel’ s catches and its periodic presence in national ports – Whether permissible – Conditions – Amendment of the national rules relating to the grant of licences – Principle of the protection of legitimate expectation – Breach – None (Council Regulation No 101/76, Art. 2(1), No 2057/82, Arts 6(1) and 9(1), No 170/83, Arts 4 and 5(2) and No 172/83)
Community law as it now stands does not preclude a Member State, in issuing to one of its vessels a licence authorizing it to fish against national quotas, from laying down conditions designed to ensure that the vessel has a real economic link with that State if that link concerns only the relations between the vessel’ s fishing operations and the populations dependent on fisheries and related industries or from laying down the condition, in order to ensure that there is such a link, that the vessel is to operate from national ports, if that condition does not involve an obligation for the vessel to depart from a national port on all its fishing trips. The Member State concerned is entitled to consider that proof of compliance with that condition may be provided by the landing of a proportion of catches or by the periodic presence of the vessel in national ports and may accept, as evidence that the vessel operates from national ports, only the landing of a specified proportion of the vessel’ s catches or a specified periodic presence of the vessel in national ports, provided that the frequency with which the vessel is required to be present in those ports does not impose, directly or indirectly, an obligation to land the vessel’ s catches in national ports or hinder normal fishing operations. The fact that in a Member State the conditions for granting fishing licences authorizing fishing against national quotas are made more restrictive while remaining compatible with Community law does not constitute a breach of the protection owed to the legitimate expectation of traders.

Citations:

C-216/87, R-216/87, [1989] EUECJ R-216/87

Links:

Bailii

European, Agriculture, Licensing

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.134673

Johnston v O’Neill: HL 14 Jul 1911

An exclusive right was claimed to the eel-fishing over the whole of Lough Neagh, a large navigable non-tidal inland lough in Ireland by the holders of a long lease, who were in right of a title to the fishings conferred by the Crown in 1661. The title of the Crown had been previously affirmed in certain inquisitions. The claimants and their authors produced some leases of the fishings in the lough, and proved occasional payments made in respect thereof at various dates since the date of the Crown grant. It was proved in defence, and not disputed, that the public had for centuries fished for eels habitually and continuously in the lough as of right. Judgment in favour of the lessees was affirmed by the Court of Appeal in Ireland (Sir S. Walker, L.C., Fitzgibbon and Holmes, L.JJ). The defendants appealed.
Held: Held that the public cannot prescribe a right of fishing in inland non-tidal waters, and ( diss. the Lord Chancellor, Lords Shaw and Robson) that the claimants had sufficiently established their title to the exclusive enjoyment of the fishings notwithstanding the continuous practice of fishing by the public.
Per Lord Macnaghten-‘The Crown is not of common right entitled to the soil or waters of an inland non-tidal lake. No right can exist in the public to fish in the waters of an inland non-tidal lake.’
Per Lord Dunedin-‘The public cannot have a right to the fishing in question. The Crown may have had a right to it when it granted the patent. The only competitor to the Crown and its patentee must be some other private owner or owners, corporation or quasi-corporation.’

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), the Earl of Halsbury, Lords Ashbourne, Macnaghten, Dunedin, Shaw, and Robson

Citations:

[1911] UKHL 638

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land, Agriculture

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.619210

United Kingdom v Commission C-133/84: ECJ 17 Apr 1986

ECJ (Judgment) 1. Agriculture – common organization of the markets – seed – production aid – peas and field beans intended for sowing – cumulation with aid for the same products used in animal feed – not permissible – determining which aid scheme is applicable – criterion – actual use – undue payments – protection of legitimate expectation – not possible
(regulation(eec) no 2358/71 of the council, arts 1 and 3(1); council regulation(eec) no 1119/78, art. 2(1); and council regulation(eec) no 2036/82)
2. Agriculture – common organization of the markets – milk and milk products – skimmed-milk powder and butter from public stocks – sale at reduced prices – conversion into national currency of the price expressed in units of account – exchange rate applicable – rate in force on the date of the event by virtue of which the amount involved in the transaction becomes due, as defined by national law
(regulation(eec) no 1134/68 of the council, arts 4 and 6)

Citations:

[1986] EUECJ C-133/84

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Agriculture

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.133889

Bensider v Commission: ECJ 27 Nov 1984

Citations:

C-50/84, [1984] EUECJ C-50/84

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

See Also – Bensider v Commission ECJ 23-May-1984
ECJ (Judgment) Application for the adoption of interim measures – suspension of operation – conditions governing the grant of such a measure – main proceedings brought out of time . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agriculture

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.133831

Gaarm – Groupement Des Associations Agricoles Pour L’organisation De La Production Et De La Commercialisation Des Pommes De Terre Et Legumes De La Region Malouine And Others v Commission of The European Communities: ECJ 13 Dec 1984

Europa 1. Non-contractual liability – importation at low prices of new potatoes from Greece – failure to act on the part of the commission (EEC treaty, art. 46 and art. 215, second para. Act of accession of the Hellenic Republic, arts 130 (2) and 131; council regulation no 17, art. 3, and council regulation no 26, art. 4) 2. Accession of new member states to the communities – Hellenic Republic -agriculture – safeguard clause – conditions governing its application -appraisal by the commission (act of accession of the Hellenic Republic, art. 130 (2))

Citations:

C-289/83, [1984] EUECJ C-289/83

Links:

Bailii

European, Agriculture

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.133781

Sermide Spa v Cassa Conguaglio Zucchero and Others: ECJ 13 Dec 1984

ECJ 1. Agriculture – common organization of the markets – discrimination between producers or consumers – prohibition – scope – measures differentiated according to regions of the community – whether permissible -objective criteria (EEC treaty, arts 7 and 40 (3), second subparagraph) 2. Agriculture – common organization of the markets – sugar – production levy – calculation – consideration of losses resulting from disposal -concept of disposal (regulation (EEC) no 3330/74 of the council, art. 27 (2); regulation (EEC) no 700/73 of the commission, art. 7 (2); commission regulation EEC) no 3358/81, art. 1)

  1. Under the principle of non-discrimination between community producers or consumers, which is enshrined in the second subparagraph of article 40 (3) of the EEC treaty and which includes the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality laid down in the first paragraph of article 7 of the EEC treaty, comparable situations must not be treated differently and different situations must not be treated in the same way unless such treatment is objectively justified. It follows that the various elements in the common organization of the markets, such as protective measures, subsidies, aid and so on, may not be differentiated according to region or according to other factors affecting production or consumption except by reference to objective criteria which ensure a proportionate division of the advantages and disadvantages for those concerned without distinction between the territories of the member states.
  2. The factors taken into account in the calculation of the sugar production levy for a given marketing year include the losses resulting from disposal of b quota sugar on the world market. Since neither regulation no 3330/74 nor regulation no 700/73 defines the concept of disposal, it was permissible for the commission, when fixing the amount of the levy in regulation no 3358/81, to quantify the volume of exports on the basis of the information derived from export licences, which impose an obligation on the licensees to carry out the operations in question, subject to the provision of security, rather than actual exports, which are difficult to bring into account owing to the practices pursued by the national authorities.

Citations:

C-106/83, R-106/83, [1984] EUECJ R-106/83

Links:

Bailii

European, Agriculture

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.133651

Apple and Pear Development Council v K J Lewis Ltd and others: ECJ 13 Dec 1983

The provisions of the Treaty relating to the free movement of goods and to agriculture and the rules on the common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables do not prevent a member state from adopting or maintaining measures (i) establishing a development council for fruit production, composed of members appointed by the minister responsible, in particular from among the growers involved, and (ii) requiring only fruit growers with a plantation which exceeds a specified size to register with the said council, to furnish returns and information on their activities in the industry and to finance the administrative and other expenses of the council by the payment of an annual charge, in so far as the activities of the council consist in compiling statistics, promoting or undertaking research, making the results thus obtained available to growers and giving growers technical advice about fruit-growing.

Citations:

C-222/82, R-222/82

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

European, Agriculture

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.133488

Richard Pool v Council of the European Communities (Rec 1980,P 569) (Gr80-I 0295) (Judgment): ECJ 4 Mar 1980

Europa 1. Non-contractual liability – conditions – illegality – damage – chain of causality (EEC Treaty, art. 215, second paragraph)
2. Agriculture – common organization of the markets – beef and veal – price system – right of producers to precise price levels of community rules – none (regulation no 805/68 of the council)
1. The non-contractual liability of the community under the second paragraph of article 215 of the EEC Treaty depends on the coincidence of a set of conditions as regards the unlawfulness of the acts alleged against the institution, the fact of damage, and the existence of a direct link in the chain of causality between the wrongful act and the damage complained of.
2. The price system which is an integral part of the common organization of the market in beef and veal – established by regulation no 805/68 – does not have the effect of guaranteeing to individual traders that their produce will be disposed of at the precise price level determined by community rules. That level, expressed in units of account, does not therefore constitute a value which could be used as a basis for comparison with the prices obtained by a producer on the market with a view to demonstrating that certain damage has been caused.

Citations:

C-49/79, [1980] EUECJ C-49/79

Links:

Bailii

European, Contract, Agriculture

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.132844

Procureur General at the Cour d’Appel Lyon v Henri Mommessin and others: ECJ 9 Dec 1975

ECJ The methods of analysis laid down by regulation no 1539/71 are mandatory not merely when wine has to be analysed for commercial purposes but also whenever the determination of the elements referred to is necessary to establish fraud or adulteration. Regulation no 1539/71 is not exhaustive but leaves to the member states the choice of applying other methods of analysis for determining the constituent elements of wine which are not relevant to the application of regulations nos 816/70 and 817/70. A member state may in the present state of community law apply as a national measure of control a presumption in law of over-alcoholization which is based on the proportion of alcohol to the dry extract measured by the 100* method, provided that that presumption is capable of being rebutted and that it is applied in such a way as not to place at a disadvantage, in law or in fact, wines from other member states.

Citations:

C-64/75, R-64/75, [1975] EUECJ R-64/75

Links:

Bailii

European, Agriculture

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.132232

Commission v McBride And Others: ECJ 14 Jun 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Appeal – Resource conservation measures and restructuring of the fisheries sector – Requests for increased safety tonnage – Annulment by the European Union judicature of the decision initially rejecting those requests – Article 266 TFEU – Repeal of the legal basis on which that initial decision was founded – Competence and legal basis to adopt new decisions – Annulment by the General Court of new decisions rejecting the requests – Principle of legal certainty

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2016:434, [2016] EUECJ C-361/14

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

TFEU 266

Jurisdiction:

European

Agriculture

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.565600

Lester v Ridd: CA 1990

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.’

Judges:

Dillon, Slade LJJ

Citations:

[1990] 2 QB 430

Statutes:

Leasehold Reform Act 1967 1(3), Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Gammon v Vernon 1729
The lessor brought debt against the assignee of the moiety of the term for the moiety of the rent reserved on the lease, arid it was resolved by the whole Court, that the action well lay. . .
Cited – Hare v Cator 1778
Declaratiori against the defendant as assignee of all the estate, andc. in certain premises: evidence that he is assignee of part only is a fatal variance. . .
Cited – Stevenson v Lambard 6-Jul-1802
The landlord brought an action in covenant against an assignee of the term claiming rent. The assignee pleaded (amongst other things) that he had been evicted from half the land by title paramount. The question for the court was whether, in those . .
Cited – Whitham v Bullock CA 1939
The assignee of part of the property comprised in the lease had paid the whole rent in order to stave off a threatened distress. He then sued the assignee of the other part for a contribution.
Held: He succeeded.
Counsel for the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Smith and Another v Jafton Properties Ltd CA 2-Nov-2011
The landlord challenged the right of the tenants to acquire the freehold. Lessees had been subdivided the apartments and then, without the landlord’s consent, assigned them. The new arrangement had increased the number of qualifying tenancies so as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Agriculture

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.448995

Johnson v Moreton: HL 1980

The tenant had, in the tenancy agreement itself, purported to contract ‘not in any event to serve a counter-notice under Section 24(1)’ of the 1948 Act.
Held: A head tenant under an agricultural tenancy has the right to challenge any notice to quit by serving a counter-notice, and any agreement purporting to exclude or curtail that right is unenforceable. The estoppel relied on was an estoppel by convention alleged to arise as a result of the common intention of the parties as at the date of the agreement. The question is whether the right conferred is exclusively personal (in which case waiver will be permitted) or is designed to serve other, broader public purposes and so, compendiously, whether to permit a waiver would undermine or frustrate the purposes of the statute.
Lord Hailsham of St Marylebone said: ‘This Act is a consolidating Act to which the observations of a majority of your Lordships in Farrell v. Alexander [1977] AC 59, 72 (Lord Wilberforce), 82 (Lord Simon of Glaisdale) and 97 (Lord Edmund-Davies) clearly apply. Even if I were not bound by these observations I would respectfully agree with them. In my view the whole purpose of consolidation would be defeated if they were not observed and rigidly adhered to or if endeavours were made to split the various components of the consolidation Act apart and construe them by reference to their individual histories. If, in the course of these remarks, I refer to the history of the legislation before and after 1948 it is not in order to construe the words of the Act, which, as will be seen, are in my view unambiguous as they stand, but simply to place them in their proper historical and social context as at 1948.’
Lord Simon of Glaisdale said: ‘The 1948 statute was a consolidation Act. Any provision in it must therefore be construed in the context of the whole of the statute in which it now stands (Farrell v. Alexander [1977] AC 59); though it is legitimate (indeed, incumbent) to investigate the statutory history in so far as that throws light on the objective of a particular provision (at p. 84); the ascertainment of the parliamentary objective is an important – generally, an essential – part of the process of statutory interpretation.’

Judges:

Lord Salmon, Lord Hailsham of St Marylebone

Citations:

[1980] AC 37

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – J S Bloor (Measham) Ltd v Eric Myles Calcott ChD 23-Nov-2001
The tenant had claimed a tenancy under the Act. The landlord sought to assert a proprietary estoppel against them. There was nothing in the 1986 Act to stop the claimants relying on a proprietary estoppel and asserting their claims to occupation. . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and another, ex parte Spath Holme Limited HL 7-Dec-2000
The section in the 1985 Act created a power to prevent rent increases for tenancies of dwelling-houses for purposes including the alleviation of perceived hardship. Accordingly the Secretary of State could issue regulations whose effect was to limit . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Agriculture

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.183145

Regina v Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food Ex Parte Hedley Lomas (Ireland) Ltd: ECJ 23 May 1996

The wrongful prevention by a state of the lawful export of animals gave rise to a right to claim for damages.
LMA The UK had refused to grant licences for the export of live sheep to Spain, on the grounds that the slaughterhouses were not complying with the terms of an EC Directive requiring the stunning of animals before slaughter. The UK conceded they were in breach of the Treaty provision on export restrictions but argued that it was justified on the grounds of animal welfare.
Held: This was a sufficiently serious breach, on the basis of

  • Lack of discretion left to MS
  • Clarity of the Treaty provision breached
  • Absence of an established ground for justification.
    Where MS was not called upon to make any legislative choices and had considerably reduced/no discretion – a mere infringement of community law may be sufficient to establish ‘as sufficiently serious breach’

    • Citations:

    Times 06-Jun-1996, [1996] ECR 1 2553, C-5/94, [1997] QB 139, [1996] EUECJ C-5/94

    Links:

    Bailii

    Cited by:

    Cited – Regina v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food ex parte Lay and Gage Admn 15-May-1995
    The claimants sought damages for the wrong interpretation of the law by the Ministry, which had restricted their rights to milk quota.
    Held: Making an administrative decision which was in breach of European law was not enough in itself to . .
    Cited – Oakley Inc v Animal Ltd and others CA 20-Oct-2005
    It was argued that the Secretary of State, when implementing the Directive in the 2001 Regulations, had exceeded his powers in preserving provisions of the Registered Designs Act. The judge had held the Seceretary had exceeded his powers. The . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Agriculture, European

    Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.87360

    Regina v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte Bray: QBD 13 Apr 1999

    A bylaw, restricting fishing by reference to the size of the ship, was valid. The words must not be construed out of context of the whole Act, and in this case an ‘instrument’ used for fishing did not include the vessel itself.

    Citations:

    Gazette 21-Apr-1999, Times 13-Apr-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 252

    Links:

    Bailii

    Statutes:

    Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966

    Environment, Agriculture

    Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.87363

    Regina v Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food ex parte Anastasiou (P) Ltd: ECJ 1 Aug 1994

    Turkish Cypriot produce was not acceptable for import without a proper origin label. A certificate from a non-community country was not acceptable, there being no standards of control.

    Citations:

    Times 14-Jul-1994, Ind Summary 01-Aug-1994, C-432/92, [1994] ECR I-3087, [1994] EUECJ C-432/92

    Links:

    Bailii

    Jurisdiction:

    European

    Cited by:

    See also – Ramondin and Ramondin Capsulas v Commission (State Aid) ECJ 11-Nov-2004
    Where the European Courts has power to permit interventions in direct actions they exercise the power in a restrictive manner, and allow interventions only by those persons able to establish a direct interest in the ruling on the specific act whose . .
    Cited – Football Association Premier League Ltd and Others v QC Leisure (A Trading Name) and Others ChD 13-Nov-2008
    Football organisations applied to be joined to a case being remitted to the European Court for the purpose of giving their views on the questions raised. The European Court practice only allowed for states to act as interveners. The court had . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Agriculture

    Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.87354

    North Devon District Council v Secretary of State for Environment, D Rottenbury B E Rottenbury: QBD 12 May 1998

    A mandatory agricultural occupancy condition was not subject to a continuous breach when cottages were occupied over summer by visitors rather than by agricultural workers as required by the permission.

    Citations:

    Times 12-May-1998, Gazette 28-May-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 458

    Links:

    Bailii

    Statutes:

    Town and Country Planning Act 1990 288

    Agriculture, Planning

    Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.84341

    Jensen v Landbrugsministeriet – Ef – Direktorat: ECJ 9 Sep 1998

    Where a farmer had a claim for subsidy from a member state and at the same time the farmer owed money to the state the state had a right to set-off the one against the other before making payment of the subsidy, if did not undermine EC market organisation

    Citations:

    Gazette 09-Sep-1998, C-132/95, Ecj/Cfi Bulletin 14/98, [1998] EUECJ C-132/95

    Links:

    Bailii

    Jurisdiction:

    England and Wales

    Agriculture, European

    Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.82514

    Bracken v East Hertfordshire District Council: QBD 11 May 2000

    An enforcement notice was served on the land owner alleging change of use from agricultural to the storage of building materials and waste and agriculture. The plan incorrectly included the applicant’s house. The applicant challenged the enforcement notice, but failed before the magistrates and on a case stated. The error did not mean that the enforcement notice ceased to be such, and could have been dealt with by other procedures.

    Citations:

    Gazette 11-May-2000

    Statutes:

    Town and Country Planning Act 1990 179(2)

    Agriculture, Planning

    Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78536

    Faulks v Faulks: ChD 1992

    One brother, as tenant farmed land under a partnership with his brother. On the death of either partner, an account was to be taken and a valuation. On the death of the tenant, there was a dispute as to whether the value of the farm’s milk quotahad become a partnership asset. The surviving brother now appealed against the arbitrator’s finding that it was not.
    Held: The appeal failed. The quota, though registered in the name of the partnership, could not be separated from the land to which it was attached. It would not have been available on a dissoultion of the partnership under the 1890 Act to meet the creditors of the partnership.

    Judges:

    Chadwick J

    Citations:

    [1992] 1 EGLR 9

    Statutes:

    Partnership Act 1890

    Jurisdiction:

    England and Wales

    Citing:

    Cited – Smith v Mules 17-Feb-1852
    A and B and the son of B entered into partnership as solicitors, and by articles agreed that the partners were diligently and faithfully to employ themselves in carrying on and managing all the professional business in which they or either of them . .
    Cited – Ambler v Bolton CA 1872
    An inalienable government contract held by one of the partners constituted a partnership asset. On the dissolution of the partnership, a value had to be given to it (since it could not be sold) and the partner who held it debited with that amount in . .
    Cited – Pawsey v Armstrong ChD 1881
    In the absence of agreement to the contrary, if there is goodwill attached to a business, it must on a dissolution, be sold for the benefit of all partners. The court ordered ‘An account of all dealings and transactions between the Plt and Deft as . .
    Cited – Wachauf v Bundesamt Fur Ernahrung und Forstwirtschaft ECJ 13-Jul-1989
    ECJ 1. The term ‘holding’ in Article 12(d) of Council Regulation No 857/84 relating to the application of the additional levy on milk covers all the agricultural production units which are the subject of a lease, . .

    Cited by:

    Applied – Davies v H and E Ecroyd Ltd ChD 1996
    The partnership was made up of a 109 acre dairy holding owned by one partner, and the second partner managed the business. The dairy holding itself was kept out of the partnership assets by explicit agreement. D, the former manager claimed, on the . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Agriculture, Company

    Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.458598

    Dixon v James: 1698

    Qutere, whether one commoner can destrain the cattle of another, who surcharges with cattle not levant and couchant (a) 1 Case lies by one commoner against another for surcharging with cattle not legant and couchant. In such case the lord may destrain. One commoner may destrain the cattle of another, where the common is for a certain number of cattle.
    The case :- The landlorders had common for all beasts levant and couchant upon their estates : the plaintiff and defendant were both entitled to this common ; and the plaintiff putting in more cattle than were levarit and couchant upon his estate, the defendnt distrained them : and the question was, whether one commoner might
    distrain another in this case : Any commoner may destrain the cattle of a stranger.

    Citations:

    [1698] EngR 14, (1698) Freem KB 273, (1698) 89 ER 195 (B)

    Links:

    Commonlii

    Jurisdiction:

    England and Wales

    Agriculture

    Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.384401

    Hudson v Macrae: 14 Nov 1863

    Angling. Jurisdiction of justices. Claim of right. Non-navigable river. Bona fides. Mens rea. In answer to an information before two justices under stat. 24 and 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 24, for unlawfully and wilfully attempting to take fish in water where another person had a private right of fishery, by angling at an hour not between the beginning of the last hour before sunrise and the expiration of the first hour after sunset, the accused justified under a supposed right on the part of the public to fish in that water.

    Citations:

    [1863] EngR 949, (1863) 4 B and S 585, (1863) 122 ER 579

    Links:

    Commonlii

    Jurisdiction:

    England and Wales

    Land, Agriculture

    Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.283604

    Sir Robert Edward Wilmot, Baronet v Joseph Rose: 25 Apr 1854

    Sect. 11 of the Act ‘To regulate the sale of farming stock taken in execution,’ 56 G. 3, e. 50, enacts that no assignee of any bankrupt or insolvent debtors’ estate, or under any bill of sale, nor any purchaser of the goods, chattels, stock or crop of any peraon employed in husbandry, on lands let to farm, shall use or dispose of any produce of such land in any other manner, and for any other purpose, than sucb bankrupt, insolvent, or other person employed in husbandry, ought to have used or disposed of the same if there had been no bankruptcy, assignment or sale made.-Held : that this prohibitioti as to purchasers is not confined to purchasers under an execution.

    Citations:

    [1854] EngR 424, (1854) 3 El and Bl 563, (1854) 118 ER 1253

    Links:

    Commonlii

    Jurisdiction:

    England and Wales

    Agriculture, Insolvency

    Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.293281

    Mortensen v Peters: 1906

    The Danish master of a Norwegian steam-trawler was prosecuted for using a particular method of fishing in the Moray Firth. He argued that, although the statute banning the method would have caught a British fisherman, it should be construed as impliedly excepting all foreigners fishing from foreign vessels outside the territorial jurisdiction of the British Crown.
    Held: The defence failed. Lord Salvesen said that it could scarcely be supposed that the British Parliament should pass legislation placing British fishermen under a disability which did not extend to foreigners: ‘I think, it was a just observation of the Solicitor General that, if legislation of this nature had been proposed, and the words inserted which the Dean of Faculty maintained were implied, it would never have been submitted by a responsible minister or have received the approval of Parliament.’

    Judges:

    Lord Salvesen

    Citations:

    (1906) 8 F (J) 93

    Cited by:

    Cited – Watkins v Home Office and others HL 29-Mar-2006
    The claimant complained of misfeasance in public office by the prisons for having opened and read protected correspondence whilst he was in prison. The respondent argued that he had suffered no loss. The judge had found that bad faith was . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Scotland, Constitutional, Agriculture

    Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.240007

    Quark Fishing Limited v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs: 2001

    The claimant had been granted licences to fish for Patagonian toothfish around South Georgia, but was refused one under the Order.
    Held: The court quashed the Secretary of State’s decision.

    Judges:

    Scott Baker J

    Citations:

    [2001] EWHC 1174 Admin

    Statutes:

    South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands Order 1985 (SI 1985 No 449) 5

    Jurisdiction:

    England and Wales

    Citing:

    See Also – Quark Fishing Ltd, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Admn 22-Jul-2003
    The respondent had failed to renew the claimant’s license to fish in the South Atlantic for Patagonian Toothfish. The refusal had been found to be unlawful. The claimant now sought damages.
    Held: English law does not generally provide a remedy . .

    Cited by:

    Appeal from – Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs v Quark Fishing Limited CA 30-Oct-2002
    Order confirmed. ‘while for my part I have found nothing to demonstrate bad faith on the part of the Secretary of State, the history of this case has demonstrated to my mind that the approach taken to the public decisions that had to be made fell . .
    See Also – Quark Fishing Ltd, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Admn 22-Jul-2003
    The respondent had failed to renew the claimant’s license to fish in the South Atlantic for Patagonian Toothfish. The refusal had been found to be unlawful. The claimant now sought damages.
    Held: English law does not generally provide a remedy . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Agriculture

    Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.197760

    Regina v North Riding of Yorkshire County Council: 1989

    The constituent councils, not having exercised the power to impose restrictions and conditions in advance, could not decline responsibility for items of expenditure necessarily incurred by the committee. Restrictions or conditions had to be imposed by unanimous agreement between all the councils concerned.

    Citations:

    [1989] 1 QB 201

    Jurisdiction:

    England and Wales

    Cited by:

    Cited – South Wales Sea Fisheries Committee v National Assembly for Wales Admn 21-Dec-2001
    The committee sought a review of the 2001 Order made under the 1966 Act to revise the contributions to be made by participating members of the committee to the costs of its administration. They contended that the only power over its costs was to . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Local Government, Agriculture

    Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.182835

    Fawcett Properties Ltd v Buckingham County Council: CA 1959

    The landowner made an attempt to strike down as ultra vires a condition attached to a planning permission. The condition related to an agricultural use condition where the occupant was not substantially dependent upon income from what was described as a hobby farm.
    Held: The condition was valid because the appellant had not shown that it was unreasonable, that it was unrelated to or inconsistent with the policy underlying the relevant planning proposals, or that irrelevant considerations had been taken into account.
    Lord Evershed MR said: ‘I take first the more broad and general attack by counsel for the company on the validity of the condition, viz., that in spite of the generality of the language of s. 14 (1) of the Act, ‘such conditions as they think fit’, it is not open to the local planning authority to impose a condition in reference to a proposed structure related not to the manner in which the building may be used (e.g., as a residence, or as a shop, etc.) but to the class of persons who may use or occupy it. On this point I am content to adopt the conclusion and reasoning of ROXBURGH, J., who stated that acceptance of such an argument would involve reading some gloss or qualification into the language chosen by Parliament and that he could find no sufficient justification for doing so.’
    . . And ‘To my mind the most difficult question is whether, when regard is had, on the one hand, to the planning scheme and proposals of the council, and the reasons given by the council for the imposition of the condition in December, 1952, and, on the other hand, to the scope and effect of the condition itself according to a fair interpretation of the language, the latter ought to be treated as having been beyond the council’s powers, not being fairly and reasonably related to the former. In formulating the question, I have, as a matter of language, substituted (by reference) the words ‘the planning scheme and proposals of the council’ for the words used by ROXBURGH, J., ‘the local planning requirements’. Both forms of words depart somewhat from the language of LORD DENNING in Pyx Granite Co., Ltd. v. Ministry of Housing and Local Government (1) ([1958] 1 All E.R. 625), where he spoke (ibid., at p. 633) of the requirement that the conditions should ‘fairly and reasonably relate to the permitted development’.’

    Judges:

    Lord Evershed MR

    Citations:

    [1959] 2 AII ER 321

    Jurisdiction:

    England and Wales

    Cited by:

    Appeal from – Fawcett Properties Ltd v Buckingham County Council HL 1960
    A grant of planning permission was subject to an agricultural occupancy condition: ‘The occupation of the houses shall be limited to persons whose employment or latest employment is or was employment in agriculture as defined by section 119(1) of . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Planning, Agriculture

    Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.554793

    Hawkins v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and Another: QBD 25 May 2000

    The applicant sought permission to continue to use a dwelling in breach of an agricultural occupation restriction. There was no evidence that the property had no realistic prospect of sale subject to the condition, and the inspector found that the restriction had not outlived its usefulness. The inspector was entitled to make a judgment as to the prospects of sale and had not taken into account irrelevant matters.

    Citations:

    Gazette 25-May-2000

    Statutes:

    Town and Country Planning Act 1990 288

    Jurisdiction:

    England and Wales

    Planning, Agriculture

    Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.81284

    Grammer v Lane and Others: CA 2 Dec 1999

    A partnership involving the plaintiff took a tenancy of agricutural land. The plaintiff then said that the tenency had been extended to other land. The successor to the freehold denied that extension, but served a rent demand and for repairs both ‘without prejudice’ to the question of the existence of the tenancy. Matters were referred to the arbitrator.
    Held: Where there was a dispute as to the existence of an agricultural tenancy, a party could nevertheless make use of notices and procedures for the protection of the tenancy on a ‘without prejudice’ basis. Where there were statutory arbitration proceedings also, the arbitrator had the choice of delaying those proceedings pending resolution of the issues as to the existence of the tenancy, of stating a case for the county court, or declining jurisdiction.

    Judges:

    Peter Gibson LJ, Mance LJ, Wilson J

    Citations:

    Times 02-Dec-1999, Gazette 17-Dec-1999

    Statutes:

    Agricultural Holdings Act 1986

    Jurisdiction:

    England and Wales

    Citing:

    Cited – Regina v Fulham, Hammersmith and Kensington Rent Tribunal, ex parte Zerek 1951
    A rent tribunal could not give itself jurisdiction over an unfurnished letting. Devlin J said: ‘While they will not allow every empty threat to their jurisdiction to deter them from their proper business of fixing reasonable rents, they will . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Agriculture, Landlord and Tenant, Arbitration

    Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.80966

    W and JB Eastwood Ltd v Herrod (VO): HL 1971

    The House was asked whether buildings used for producing broiler chickens were agricultural buildings. They would be exempt had it been possible to say that they were used ‘solely’ in connection with the agricultural operations on the land together with which they were occupied, which was used for the production of barely which was converted into poultry food. Held; The key words were ‘used in connection with’. The ordinary usage of the English language suggested that the buildings must be subsidiary or ancillary to the agricultural operations, and that he did not foresee serious difficulty if the phrase was held to mean use consequential on or ancillary to the agricultural operations on the land which was occupied together with the buildings. The use of the buildings were in no sense ancillary to the agricultural operations on the land, as it was a large commercial enterprise in which the use of the land played a very minor part.

    Judges:

    Lord Reid, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Lord Guest and Viscount Dilhorne.

    Citations:

    [1971] AC 160

    Statutes:

    Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act 1928 2(2)

    Jurisdiction:

    England and Wales

    Cited by:

    Cited – Gallagher (Valuation Officer) v Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints HL 30-Jul-2008
    The House considered whether certain properties of the Church were subject to non-domestic rating. Various buildings were on the land, and the officer denied that some fell within the exemptions, and in particular whether the Temple itself was a . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Rating, Agriculture

    Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.272219

    Fawcett Properties Ltd v Buckingham County Council: HL 1960

    A grant of planning permission was subject to an agricultural occupancy condition: ‘The occupation of the houses shall be limited to persons whose employment or latest employment is or was employment in agriculture as defined by section 119(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, or in forestry or in any industry mainly dependent upon agriculture and including also the dependants of such persons as aforesaid.’
    It was argued that the condition (i) was ultra vires the statutory power to grant planning permission subject to conditions and/or (ii) was void for uncertainty.
    Held: The appeal failed. The term ‘dependants’ means persons living in a family with the person defined (the agricultural occupant), and dependent on him (or her) in whole or in part of their subsistence and support. A condition will be void for uncertainty only if it can be given no meaning or no sensible or ascertainable meaning, and not merely because it is ambiguous or leads to absurd results.
    Lord Keith of Avonholm rejected the argument as to uncertaincy, saying: ‘Reading the condition as a whole I do not find any insuperable difficulty in arriving at a reasonable and clear idea of the content of the condition. It refers in the first place to ‘the occupation of the houses’, which I read as being confined to occupation by persons having certain defined qualifications and to the dependants of these persons. There may be a certain ambiguity here, but your Lordships are not concerned here with resolving ambiguities or placing a considered and final meaning on the condition. Speaking for myself I would not read the occupation as covering an independent occupation by dependants of the persons mentioned, but as including occupation by such dependants while living in family with such persons and occupying the houses along with them. Death, or removal from the houses, of the persons defined would terminate the occupation of the dependants. Nor can I see any difficulty in construing ‘dependants’, when brought within the confines of a house, as meaning persons living in family with the person defined and dependent on him in whole or part for their subsistence and support ‘
    Lord Denning summarised the relevant principles relating to the imposition of planning conditions, including that they must fairly and reasonably relate to the permitted development, and said: ‘The condition, properly construed with the reason, means, I think, that the occupation of the cottages must be limited to persons who are employed in agriculture in the locality or in a local industry mainly dependent upon agriculture in the locality. The word ‘occupation’ is used to denote the head of the household. The word ‘latest’ to show that he may stay on in the cottages after his retirement. The word ‘dependants’ to show that he may have with him his wife and family and anyone else dependent on him. So construed it seems to me that the condition fairly and reasonably relates to the permitted development. Its effect is to ensure that the cottages will be occupied by persons who will help to maintain the normal life and character of this part of the green belt and not by outsiders to use as a dormitory. The cottages are for farm-workers or for men who work at the smith shoeing horses, at the mill grinding the corn, or at the saw mills cutting up wood; or in modern times at the milk depot bottling the milk or at the repair shop mending the tractors; and so forth. They are not for people who go up and down to London every day’
    Lord Denning stated: ‘a planning condition is only void for uncertainty if it can be given no meaning or no sensible or ascertainable meaning, and not merely because it is ambiguous or leads to absurd results. It is the daily task of the courts to resolve ambiguities of language and to choose between them; and to construe words so as to avoid absurdities or to put up with them. And this applies to conditions in planning permissions as well as to other documents.’

    Judges:

    Lord Keith of Avonholm, Lord Denning

    Citations:

    [1961] AC 636, [1960] 3 All ER 503

    Statutes:

    Town and Country Planning Act 1947 14(1)

    Jurisdiction:

    England and Wales

    Citing:

    Appeal from – Fawcett Properties Ltd v Buckingham County Council CA 1959
    The landowner made an attempt to strike down as ultra vires a condition attached to a planning permission. The condition related to an agricultural use condition where the occupant was not substantially dependent upon income from what was described . .

    Cited by:

    Cited – Shortt v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another Admn 22-Jul-2014
    . .
    Cited – Shortt and Another v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another CA 18-Nov-2015
    Appeal concerning the meaning of ‘dependants’ in an agricultural occupancy condition attached to a planning permission: ‘The occupation of the dwelling shall be limited to persons employed or last employed solely or mainly and locally in agriculture . .
    Cited – Broads Authority v Fry Admn 5-Nov-2015
    The boat owner had charged tolls against the respondent boat owner. He failed to pay saying that his vessel being moored at a private mooring on ‘adjacent water’ he was not liable. His appeal against his conviction had succeeded at the Crown Court, . .
    Cited – Trump International Golf Club Scotland Ltd and Another v The Scottish Ministers (Scotland) SC 16-Dec-2015
    The appellant challenged the grant of permission to the erection of wind turbines within sight of its golf course.
    Held: The appeal failed. The challenge under section 36 was supported neither by the language or structure of the 1989 Act, and . .
    Cited – Aberdeen City and Shire Strategic Development Planning Authority v Elsick Development Company Limited SC 25-Oct-2017
    The court was asked whether, anticipating substantial growth, a local authority had power to attach to permissions for development conditions intended to recover sums for pooled fund for infrastructure development.
    Held: The appeal failed. . .
    Cited – Wright, Regina (on The Application of Wright) v Resilient Energy Severndale Ltd and Another SC 20-Nov-2019
    W challenged the grant of planning permission for the change of use of agricultural land to allow erection of a wind turbine, saying that the authority had taken into account a promise by the land owner to run the scheme as a community development . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Planning, Agriculture

    Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.554792

    Ministry of Defence v Spencer and Another: CA 22 May 2003

    The parties had varied the agricultural tenancy. A small parcel had been added, and the rent increased to reflect only that additional land. The tenant claimed that, under the Act, this operated to skip the next rent review.
    Held: The phrase ‘terms of the tenancy’ was not a term of art, but was to be constrrued with its natural meaning. ‘Any other variation of the terms of the tenancy’ would include an extension of the holding to add land. Appeal dismissed.

    Judges:

    Lord Justice Auld, Lord Justice Waller and Lord Justice Mantell

    Citations:

    Times 09-Jun-2003, Gazette 17-Jul-2003

    Statutes:

    Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 Sch2

    Jurisdiction:

    England and Wales

    Citing:

    Appeal from – Secretary of State for Defence v Spencer and Another ChD 17-Oct-2002
    An agricultural tenancy was varied by the addition of a small plot of land. The tenant argued that this led to a postponement of the review under the Act. The landlord appealed.
    Held: The addition of a plot could not properly be seen as a . .

    Cited by:

    Appealed to – Secretary of State for Defence v Spencer and Another ChD 17-Oct-2002
    An agricultural tenancy was varied by the addition of a small plot of land. The tenant argued that this led to a postponement of the review under the Act. The landlord appealed.
    Held: The addition of a plot could not properly be seen as a . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Agriculture, Landlord and Tenant

    Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.183390

    Gebr Metelmann gmbh and co Kg v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas: ECJ 12 Dec 1985

    Europa 1. Agriculture – common organization of the markets – export refunds -refunds fixed in advance – condition of payment – departure of the goods ‘ unaltered ‘ from the territory of the community – repackaging following customs clearance – forfeiture of the refund – completion of customs formalities after the event – reference date for determining the rate of refund – actual date of departure (commission regulation no 2730/79, art. 9 (1)) 2. Agriculture – monetary compensatory amounts – advance fixing of compensatory amounts and export refunds – forfeiture of the refund -concomitant forfeiture of the monetary compensatory amount – completion of customs formalities after the event – reference date for determining the rate of the compensatory amount – date adopted for determining the rate of refund (commission regulation no 243/78, art. 2; commission regulation no 1371/81). 1. Article 9 (1) of regulation (EEC) no 2730/79, which provides that the export refund is to be paid on condition that the goods have left the geographical territory of the community ‘ unaltered ‘, must be interpreted as meaning that any alteration in the presentation of the goods, where it is such as to render customs control more difficult, entails forfeiture of the refund. Where, exceptionally, customs export formalities may still be completed after the date on which the goods have left the geographical territory of the community, the rate of refund to be applied is that applicable on that date. 2. Since monetary compensatory amounts may be fixed in advance only if the export refunds and levies are also fixed in advance, forfeiture of the refund fixed in advance also entails forfeiture of the monetary compensatory amounts fixed in advance. Where customs formalities are completed after the event, reference may not be made to different dates for the purpose of fixing the rate of the monetary compensatory amount payable pursuant to regulation no 1371/81 and the rate of the refund.

    Citations:

    C-276/84

    European, Agriculture

    Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.133992

    An Bord Bainne Co-Operative Ltd v Milk Marketing Board: 1984

    Citations:

    [1984] 2 CMLR 585

    Jurisdiction:

    European

    Cited by:

    Cited – Phonographic Performance Limited v Department of Trade and Industry HM Attorney General ChD 23-Jul-2004
    The claimant represented the interests of copyright holders, and complained that the defendant had failed to implement the Directive properly, leaving them unable properly to collect royalties in the music rental market. The respondent argued that . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Agriculture

    Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.214292

    Moll v MacGregor: 1990

    (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.’

    Citations:

    [1990] SLT 59

    Statutes:

    Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949

    Jurisdiction:

    Scotland

    Cited by:

    Cited – Mason v Boscawen ChD 18-Dec-2008
    The landlord had opted to charge VAT on part of the rent. The tenant fell into arrears and now challenged a notice to quit which included the VAT. The court was asked what constituted ‘rent’ for the purposes of a demand for rent founding a notice to . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Scotland, Landlord and Tenant, Agriculture

    Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.279104

    Peers v Lucy: 1694

    A person cannot in law prescribe a right to catch fish for himself and his servants and for his several fisheries, in another man’s land. Though the law knows of easements, a right of fishery is a right to the thing itself – the fish and is not properly an easement.

    Citations:

    [1694] 4 Mod Rep 355, [1694] ER 441

    Jurisdiction:

    England and Wales

    Agriculture, Land

    Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.269748

    The Case of the Royal Fishery of the Banne: 1610

    A royal fishery did not pass by a general grant of all fisheries, because general words in a grant did not pass ‘special royalty which belongeth to the Crown by prerogative’.

    Citations:

    [1610] Dav 149

    Jurisdiction:

    England and Wales

    Cited by:

    Applied – Duke of Somerset v Fogwell 1826
    Where a subject is owner of a several fishery in a navigable river, where the tide flows and reflows, granted to him (as must be presumed) before Magna Charta, by the description of ‘separalem piscariam,’ that is an incorporeal and not a territorial . .
    Cited – Crown Estate Commissioners v Roberts and Another ChD 13-Jun-2008
    The defendant claimed ownership as Lord Marcher of St Davids of historical rights in foreshores in Pembrokeshire. The claimants sought removal of his cautions against first registration.
    Held: Lewison J explored the history of manorial . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Agriculture, Constitutional

    Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.269747

    Duke of Somerset v Fogwell: 1826

    Where a subject is owner of a several fishery in a navigable river, where the tide flows and reflows, granted to him (as must be presumed) before Magna Charta, by the description of ‘separalem piscariam,’ that is an incorporeal and not a territorial hereditament, and a term for years in it cannot be created without deed. Semble, that the owner of a several fishery, in ordinary cases, and where the terms of the grant are unknown, may be presumed to be owner of the soil.

    Citations:

    (1826) 5 B and C 875, [1826] EngR 601, (1826) 108 ER 325

    Links:

    Commonlii

    Jurisdiction:

    England and Wales

    Citing:

    Applied – The Case of the Royal Fishery of the Banne 1610
    A royal fishery did not pass by a general grant of all fisheries, because general words in a grant did not pass ‘special royalty which belongeth to the Crown by prerogative’. . .

    Cited by:

    Cited – Crown Estate Commissioners v Roberts and Another ChD 13-Jun-2008
    The defendant claimed ownership as Lord Marcher of St Davids of historical rights in foreshores in Pembrokeshire. The claimants sought removal of his cautions against first registration.
    Held: Lewison J explored the history of manorial . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Agriculture, Land

    Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.269750

    Beevor v Mason: 1978

    Under the 1948 Act, effect must be given to a notice to quit served after failure to comply with a notice requiring the tenant to pay any rent due within two months of the notice. The evidence showed that the landlord had previously accepted payment of the rent by cheque posted on the date it was due. The court held that a cheque posted in this way on the last day of the two month notice period was payment of the rent on that day if the cheque was honoured. The cheque was not received by the landlord until after the notice had expired. Nevertheless, as a result of the previous course of dealing, the court held that the tenant was entitled to pay by cheque and treated the post office as the landlord’s agent for the purpose of deciding when the cheque was delivered.

    Citations:

    (1978) 37 P and CR 452

    Statutes:

    Agricultural Holdings Act 1948

    Cited by:

    Cited – Andy Coltrane v Janice Day CA 14-Mar-2003
    In the course of possession proceedings for non payment of rent under an assured tenancy, the tenant gave the landlord a cheque which cleared the arrears.
    Held: The past course of dealings between the parties showed that the landlord had . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Landlord and Tenant, Banking, Agriculture

    Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.180780

    W Beus GmbH and Co v Hauptzollamt Munchen (Judgment): ECJ 13 Mar 1968

    Europa Agriculture – common agricultural policy – common organization of the markets – fruit and vegetables – entry price – deduction of taxes on imports, including the German turnover equalization tax – fixing – duties of the commission (regulation no 23 of the council of the EEC of 4 April 1962, sixth subparagraph of article 11(2); regulation no 65/65 of the council of the EEC of 13 may 1965, article 1) 2. Agriculture – common agricultural policy – common organization of the markets – fruit and vegetables – reference price – fixing – power of the commission to exercise its discretion – review by the court (regulation no 23 of the council of the EEC of 4 April 1962, second subparagraph of article 11(2); regulation no 65/65 of the council of the EEC of 13 may 1965, article 1) 3. Agriculture – common agricultural policy – objectives – protection of the interests of producers and consumers – conflict of interests – principle of community preference (EEC treaty, article 39; article 44(2)) 4. Measures adopted by community institutions – statement of reasons in regulations – requirement to state the reasons on which the measure is based – extent (EEC treaty, article 190). 1. The expression ‘ other taxes on imports ‘ appearing in the sixth subparagraph of article 11(2) of regulation no 23, as amended by article 1 of regulation no 65/65/eec covers the turnover equalization tax collected in Germany (‘ umsatzausgleichssteuer ‘) as well as the community countervailing charge collected on the basis of the said regulations. In calculating the entry price of fruit and vegetables from third states, it is necessary therefore to deduct from the amount of these taxes the prices recorded on the representative import markets of the member states. Since the said sixth subparagraph provides that the entry price shall be fixed ‘ on the basis of the lowest prices recorded on the representative import markets ‘, the commission must take into account the lowest prices ruling on each market during the observation period. 2. The expression ‘ considerable part of the marketed output throughout the year or during a part thereof ‘, used in the second subparagraph of article 11(2) of regulation no 23, as amended by the sole article of regulation no 65/65/eec, shows that the commission has a certain area of discretion as to the choice of varieties to be considered for fixing the reference price for fruit and vegetables. The court must therefore confine itself where necessary to considering whether or not the choice made by the commission is of an arbitrary nature. 3. The objectives set out in article 39 of the EEC treaty, which are intended to safeguard the interests of farmers and consumers, may not all be simultaneously and fully attained. In balancing these interests, the council must take into account, where necessary, in favour of the farmers the principle known as ‘ community preference ‘, which is one of the principles of the treaty and which in agricultural matters is laid down in articles 44(2). 4. The extent of the requirement, laid down by article 190 of the treaty, to state the reasons on which measures are based, depends on the nature of the measure in question. The statement of the reasons for a regulation may be confined to indicating the general situation which led to its adoption, on the one hand, and the general objectives which it is intended to attain on the other. Consequently it is not possible to require that it should set out the various facts, which are often very numerous and complex, on the basis of which the regulation was adopted, or a fortiori that it should provide a more or less complete evaluation of those facts.

    Citations:

    C-5/67

    European, Agriculture

    Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.131835

    Firma Milchwerke H Wohrmann and Sohn KG v Hauptzollamt Bad Reichenhall(Judgment): ECJ 4 Apr 1968

    Europa Agriculture – common agricultural policy – common organization of the markets – milk and milk products – importation from third countries – charge by way of turnover tax – not a charge having an effect equivalent to a customs duty – legality (regulation no 13/64/eec of the council of 5 February 1964, article 12(2)). A tax imposed on the importation of products from third countries does not constitute a charge having an effect equivalent to a customs duty within the meaning of article 12(2) of regulation no 13/64 on the progressive establishment of a common organization of the markets in milk and milk products when it is imposed as a charge under the national system of turnover tax. Cf. Paragraph 5, summary, case 57/65, (1966) ECR 295.

    Citations:

    C-7/67

    European, Agriculture

    Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.131837

    Farmer and Another v Buxted Poultry Ltd: HL 10 Mar 1993

    Buildings which were in fact far apart, could not be treated as being ‘occupied together with’ as agricultural buildings for rating purposes.

    Judges:

    Lord Slynn of Hadley

    Citations:

    Gazette 10-Mar-1993, [1993] AC 369

    Jurisdiction:

    England and Wales

    Citing:

    Approved – Midlothian Assessor v Buccleuch Estates Ltd 1962
    (Lands Valuation Appeal Court) The landowner had several parcels of woodland and sawmills. They were on different sites, but worked together as a single business.
    Lord Kilbrandon observed: ‘It has never yet been admitted that you can have a . .

    Cited by:

    Cited – Woolway v Mazars SC 29-Jul-2015
    The Court was asked how different storeys under common occupation in the same block are to be entered in the rating list for the purpose of non-domestic rating. In this case the firm’s two offices were in the same building, but the connection . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Rating, Agriculture

    Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.80474

    Teglgaard and Flojstrupgard v Fodevareministeriets Klagecenter: ECJ 25 Jul 2018

    Reference for a preliminary ruling – Common agricultural policy – Support schemes for farmers – Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 – Article 6(1) – Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 – Article 23(1) – Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 – Article 66(1) – Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 – Article 70(8)(a) – Cross-compliance – Reduction in direct payments due to non-compliance with the statutory management requirements or good agricultural and environmental conditions – Determination of the year to be taken into account in order to determine the percentage reduction – Year in which the non-compliance occurred

    Citations:

    ECLI:EU:C:2018:597, [2018] EUECJ C-239/17

    Links:

    Bailii

    Jurisdiction:

    European

    Citing:

    Opinion – Teglgaard and Flojstrupgard v Fodevareministeriets Klagecenter ECJ 17-May-2018
    Agriculture and Fisheries – Support Schemes for Farmers – Opinion . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Agriculture

    Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.634082

    Corporation of Truro v Rowe: 1901

    Where a public fishery in tidal waters exists no person – including the Crown – has the right to exclude the public or substantially to interfere with fishery.
    Wiles J said: ‘It is quite true that the oyster-laying may interfere with the uninterrupted user of the foreshore by the owner; but a like interference with territorial rights takes place in many instances which present no legal difficulty. The rights of inhabitants to recreate themselves on a village green have been repeatedly established by evidence and upheld by the Courts, and yet they may absolutely destroy all chance of the owner making any, or any but the slightest, beneficial use of land which is undoubtedly his. The custom here alleged is not open to the objection that it is in substance a claim to a profit a prendre, nor in my judgment to any other legal objection to its validity. Apart from custom, the owner of the foreshore owns and enjoys the foreshore subject to the common rights of all members of the public, which are such as to reduce the value of the foreshore in nine cases out of ten to something of very small pecuniary value. The owner cannot build on it, because the public have rights of passage over it everywhere per mare et per terram. In all but some exceptional cases he cannot graze it, because no herbage will grow upon it. Where herbage will grow upon it, as in the fens, I do not think oysters will be found to be composite factors. At all events, the enjoyment of the foreshore is subject to the common rights of fishing, and if oysters constitute a part of the fish to be taken, the right of fishing must include the necessary and practical incidentals, and if they involve the consequences that in some places the owner cannot dig ballast or sand for sale, as he can generally, he suffers no inconvenience or loss which is not common to him and the owner – for example, – of the village green, who cannot dig pits or do other acts of ownership which would interfere with the rights of recreation of the inhabitants.’

    Judges:

    Wills J

    Citations:

    [1901] 2 KB 870

    Land, Agriculture

    Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.526742

    Gallagher v Lynn: PC 1936

    Section 4 of the 1920 Act provided that the Parliament of Northern Ireland had power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Northern Ireland, but not to make laws in respect of, among other things, trade with any place out of Northern Ireland. Challenge was made to the 1934 Act which purported to regulate the supply of milk in Northern Ireland which imposed controls on every person who within Northern Ireland sold or exposed for sale milk, whether produced within or without the territory of Northern Ireland.
    Held: The Act was a law for the peace, order and good government of Northern Ireland in respect of precautions taken to secured the health of its inhabitants, not a law in respect of trade.
    Lord Atkin went on to explain the ‘pith and substance doctrine’, saying: ‘These questions affecting limitation on the legislative powers of subordinate parliaments or the distribution of powers between parliaments in a federal system are now familiar, and I do not propose to cite the whole range of authority which has largely arisen in discussion of the powers of Canadian Parliaments. It is well established that you are to look at the ‘true nature and character of the legislation’ . . ‘the pith and substance of the legislation.’ If, on the view of the statute as a whole, you find that the substance of the legislation is within the express powers, then it is not invalidated if incidentally it affects matters which are outside the authorized field. The legislation must not under the guise of dealing with one matter in fact encroach upon the forbidden field. Nor are you to look only at the object of the legislator. An Act may have a perfectly lawful object, eg to promote the health of the inhabitants, but may seek to achieve that object by invalid methods, eg a direct prohibition of any trade with a foreign country.’

    Judges:

    Lord Atkin

    Citations:

    [1937] AC 863

    Statutes:

    Government of Ireland Act 1920, Milk and Milk Products Act (Northern Ireland) Act 1934

    Citing:

    Cited – Charles Russell v The Queen PC 23-Jun-1882
    (New Brunswick) The defendant had been convicted of unlawfully selling intoxicating Licquor contrary to the 1878 Act. He challenged his conviction saying that the Act had been outwith the powers of the Parliament of Canada as provided for by the . .

    Cited by:

    Cited – Imperial Tobacco Ltd v The Lord Advocate SC 12-Dec-2012
    The claimant company said that the 2010 Act was outside the competence of the Scottish Parliament insofar as it severely restricted the capacity of those selling cigarettes to display them for sale. They suggested two faults. First, that the subject . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Constitutional, Northern Ireland, Agriculture

    Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.468810

    Scamler v Johnson: 1729

    Trespass quare clausum fregit, and herbam suam depastur. The defendant pleaded that J. Ramsey, long before the trespass, was seised of an ancient messuage with the appurtenances, and prescribed for common of pasture, in the plaintiff’s close for his cattle, levant and couchant on tbe said messuage, with the appurtenances, and made title to the wife of Ramsey for her life, who bad entred and adhuc seisata existit, and conveyed to himself the said messuage at, the will of the wife, and justified utendo communia praedict’. Whereupon the plaintiff demurred. And Sanders for the plaintiff said, that the prescription is not good, for cattle cannot be levant and couchant on a messuage. Holt for the defendant, that the prescription is good, and a messuage comprehends the curtilage, which may be an acre or more, on which the cattle may be levant and couchant. And per Cur. the prescription is good, for it is not a common appendant but appurtenant, and such commori is usual in the county of Lincoln, and other counties, and that this is maintainable better for cattle levant and couchant than otherwise, 2. It was objected that the life of Frances ia not aver’d, and if she be dead, the defendant her lessee at will hath no title, But non allocatur; for (adhuc seisita existit) is a good averment of her life.

    Citations:

    [1729] EngR 214, (1729) T Jones 227, (1729) 84 ER 1230 (A)

    Links:

    Commonlii

    Agriculture, Land, Animals

    Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.388162

    Attorney General v Emerson: 1891

    Forms of fishing which involve fixtures into the soil of the foreshore are more likely to be regarded as acts of possession of the soil itself than would be more ephemeral forms of fishing.

    Citations:

    [1891] AC 649

    Cited by:

    Cited – Roberts v Swangrove Estates Ltd and Another ChD 14-Mar-2007
    The court heard preliminary applications in a case asserting acquisition of land by adverse possession, the land being parts of the foreshore of the Severn Estuary.
    Held: A person may acquire title to part of the bed of a tidal river by . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Land, Agriculture

    Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.267375

    Verrall v Farnes: 1966

    Consideration for an agreement need not take a monetary form. As to section 2, Cross J said: ‘After all, one of the objects of the Act of 1948, as I understand the matter, was to give security of tenure to those actually farming that land, so that they should not be tempted to take the last halfpenny of profit out of it during the period for which they had a contractual right to remain in occupation, without regard to its future welfare after the date when they were liable to be turned out.’

    Judges:

    Cross J

    Citations:

    [1966] 1 WLR 1254

    Statutes:

    Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 2

    Jurisdiction:

    England and Wales

    Landlord and Tenant, Agriculture

    Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.241598

    Commission of the European Communities (supported by United Kingdom, intervener) v French Republic: ECJ 13 Dec 2001

    Europe had banned the export of beef from England to prevent the sale of BSE infected meat. The ban was lifted under strict conditions set under Community veterinary advice. The French Republic retained their ban, and continued it despite instruction from the Commission to lift it, saying that their own national Food Safety Agency said there were still unresolved questions, regarding the traceability of certain product. Those concerns remained apposite as to some pre-packed products, but as to the rest the complaint was upheld.

    Judges:

    CJ Rodriguez Iglesias, P and Judges P Jann, F Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, C. Gulmann, DAO Edward, A. La Pergola, J-P Puissochet, L Sevon, M Wathelet, R Schintgen and V Skouris Advocate General J Mischo

    Citations:

    Times 19-Dec-2001, Case C-1/00

    Jurisdiction:

    European

    Agriculture, European, Commercial

    Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.167073

    Regina v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte: Lay, Gage and Gage: ECJ 16 Oct 1997

    ECJ Agriculture – Common organization of the markets – Milk and milk products -Additional levy on milk – Allocation of reference quantities exempt from the levy – Producers having suspended deliveries under the system of premiums for non-marketing or conversion – Grant of a special reference quantity -Transfer of part of a mixed holding – Apportionment of the special reference quantity in proportion to the part of the holding given over to milk production at the time when the non-marketing undertaking was entered into (Council Regulations No 1078/77 and No 2055/93, Arts 1(2) and 2)
    Articles 1(2) and 2 of Regulation No 2055/93, which introduced, under the additional milk levy system, rules for calculating the special reference quantity where part of a holding is transferred, must be interpreted as meaning that, where part of a mixed holding is transferred, the reference quantity must be apportioned between the transferor and transferee, or allocated to the transferee, in proportion to the part of the holding directly or indirectly given over to dairy production at the time when the non-marketing undertaking was entered into pursuant to Regulation No 1078/77, and not in proportion to the total area of the holding.

    Citations:

    Case C-165/95

    European, Agriculture

    Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.161593

    European Parliament v Council of the European Union 162111: ECJ 25 Feb 1999

    ECJ Regulations on the protection of forests against atmospheric pollution and fire – Legal basis – Article 43 of the EC Treaty – Article 130s of the EC Treaty – Parliament’s prerogatives.
    Europa ‘It is clear from the provisions of the amended regulations that the aims of the Community schemes for the protection of forests are partly agricultural since they are intended in particular to contribute to safeguarding the productive potential of agriculture, and partly of a specifically environmental nature, since their primary objective is to maintain and monitor forest ecosystems.
    In such circumstances it is necessary, in order to determine the appropriate legal basis, to consider whether the measures in question relate principally to a particular field of action, having only incidental effects on other policies, or whether both aspects are equally essential. If the first hypothesis is correct, recourse to a single legal basis is sufficient . . ; if the second is correct, it is insufficient . . and the institution is required to adopt the measure on the basis of both the provisions from which its competence derives . . . However, no such dual basis is possible where the procedures laid down for each legal basis are incompatible with each other . . .
    With more particular reference to the common agricultural policy and the Community environmental policy, there is nothing in the case-law to indicate that, in principle, one should take preference over the other. It makes clear that a Community measure cannot be part of Community action on environmental matters merely because it takes account of requirements of protection referred to in Article 130r(2) of the EC Treaty . . . Articles 130r and 130s leave intact the powers held by the Community under other provisions of the Treaty and provide a legal basis only for specific action on environmental matters . . . In contrast, Article 130s of the Treaty must be the basis for provisions which fall specifically within the environmental policy . . , even if they have an impact on the functioning of the internal market . . or if their objective is the improvement of agricultural production . .

    Citations:

    C-164/97

    Jurisdiction:

    European

    Cited by:

    Cited – Horvath, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Admn 21-Jul-2006
    The claimant sought to challenge the validity of the 2004 Regulations whereby the payment under the Single Payment Scheme was reduced because of the existence of a public right of way across the land.
    Held: ‘there are cogent arguments for the . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Agriculture, Environment

    Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.162111

    Rewe v Hauptzollamt Emmerich (Judgment): ECJ 11 Feb 1971

    Europa The provisions of article 226 are applicable to agricultural products. The insertion of special safeguarding clauses in agricultural regulations does not affect the scope of that article. The commission retains the power to authorize on the basis of article 226 the protective measures necessary to remedy economic difficulties in the agricultural sector of a member state, even if an agricultural regulation prescribes specific measures applicable to cases of the same nature.

    Citations:

    C-37/70

    Jurisdiction:

    European

    Agriculture

    Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.131931

    Regina v Minister of Agriculture Fish and Food ex parte Cox: CA 16 Feb 1993

    The temporary transferee of part of an agricultural unit which held a dairy quota, must come to be actually operating the agricultural unit before he could make a claim for the transfer of any associated milk quota.

    Citations:

    Times 16-Feb-1993

    Jurisdiction:

    England and Wales

    Agriculture, Land

    Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.87355

    Spika and Others v Fisheries Service under the Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Lithuania: ECJ 12 Jul 2018

    Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Common fisheries policy – Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 – Article 16 (6) and Article 17 – Allocation of fishing opportunities – National legislation providing for a method based on objective and transparent criteria – Conditions for fishing competition between operators in the sector – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Articles 16 and 20 – Freedom of enterprise – Equal treatment – Proportionality

    Citations:

    ECLI:EU:C:2018:565, C-540/16, [2018] EUECJ C-540/16

    Links:

    Bailii

    Jurisdiction:

    European

    Agriculture, Human Rights

    Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620047

    Spain v Commission T-88/17: ECFI 5 Jul 2018

    Agriculture and Fisheries – Judgment – EAFRD – Last implementation exercise of the 2007-2013 programming period – Clearance of the accounts of the paying agencies of the Member States – Decision declaring a certain amount of non-reusable under the Rural Development Program of the Autonomous Community of Extremadura – Method of calculation – Article 69 (5b) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 – Legitimate expectations

    Citations:

    ECLI:EU:T:2018:406, [2018] EUECJ T-88/17

    Links:

    Bailii

    Jurisdiction:

    European

    Agriculture

    Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620046

    Stewart v Williamson: HL 29 Apr 1910

    A lease of a sheep farm for five years expiring at Whitsunday 1909. provided that at the expiry of the lease ‘the tenant shall leave the sheep stock on the farm to the proprietors or incoming tenant according to the valuation of men mutually chosen, with power to name an oversman.’ The Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1908, section 11 (1), enacts-‘All questions which under this Act or under the lease are referred to arbitration shall . . be determined, notwithstanding any agreement under the lease or otherwise providing for a different method of arbitration, by a single arbiter in accordance with the provisions set out in the second schedule to this Act.’ Held that the Act applied, and that a single arbiter fell to be appointed.

    Judges:

    Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), the Earl of Halsbury, Lord Atkinson, and Lord Mersey

    Citations:

    47 SLR 536, [1910] UKHL 2, 1910 1 SLT 326, 1910 SC (HL) 47, [1910] AC 455, [1910] UKHL 536

    Links:

    Bailii, Bailii

    Jurisdiction:

    Scotland

    Citing:

    At SCS – Stewart v Williamson SCS 13-Jul-1909
    . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Arbitration, Agriculture

    Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619791

    Teglgaard and Flojstrupgard v Fodevareministeriets Klagecenter: ECJ 17 May 2018

    Agriculture and Fisheries – Support Schemes for Farmers – Opinion

    Citations:

    C-239/17, [2018] EUECJ C-239/17 – O

    Links:

    Bailii

    Jurisdiction:

    European

    Cited by:

    Opinion – Teglgaard and Flojstrupgard v Fodevareministeriets Klagecenter ECJ 25-Jul-2018
    Reference for a preliminary ruling – Common agricultural policy – Support schemes for farmers – Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 – Article 6(1) – Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 – Article 23(1) – Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 – Article 66(1) – Regulation (EC) . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Agriculture

    Updated: 22 April 2022; Ref: scu.616980

    Jersey Produce Marketing Organisation (New Accessions): ECJ 8 Nov 2005

    Europa Legislation on the export of potatoes from Jersey to the United Kingdom – 1972 Act of Accession – Protocol No 3 on the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man – Regulation No 706/73 – Articles 23 EC, 25 EC and 29 EC – Charges having an effect equivalent to customs duties – Measures having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions

    Citations:

    C-293/02, [2005] EUECJ C-293/02, [2005] ECR I-9543, [2006] All ER (EC) 1126, ECLI:EU:C:2005:664, [2006] 1 CMLR 29

    Links:

    Bailii

    Jurisdiction:

    European

    Cited by:

    Cited – Routier and Another v Revenue and Customs SC 16-Oct-2019
    A Jersey Charity created under a will of a Jersey resident was transfer to the UK, and reregistered with the UK Charity Commission. The Revenue sought to apply Inheritance Tax.
    Held: Jersey was to be considered a third country for the purpose . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Agriculture, Customs and Excise

    Updated: 19 April 2022; Ref: scu.234686

    Revenue and Customs v Frank A Smart and Son Ltd: SC 29 Jul 2019

    The question was whether a taxpayer can deduct as input tax the VAT which it has incurred in purchasing entitlements to an EU farm subsidy, the Single Farm Payment. The taxpayer had used those entitlements to annual subsidies over several years and intended to use money resulting from the receipt of those subsidies to fund its current and future business activities, which currently involve only taxable supplies.
    Held: The appeal failed: ‘The recognition that fund-raising costs may, where the evidence permits, be treated as general overheads of a taxable person’s business means that the taxable person must be able to provide objective evidence to support the connection between the fund-raising transaction and its proposed economic activities. The taxpayer also needs to maintain adequate banking arrangements and records to vouch the later use of the funds so raised to demonstrate its entitlement to deduct and to retain the deduction, if investigated. As the CJEU recorded in Sveda (para 36) the taxpayer will have to repay input VAT if it does not use the input goods or services for the purposes of its economic activity. HMRC has power to charge VAT under regulation 3 of the Value Added Tax (Supply of Services) Order 1993 (SI 1993/1507), where a taxable person uses services supplied to it for its business for a purpose other than a business use, by treating that use as a supply of services in the course of its business. This may involve HMRC in more investigations than the CJEU envisaged in BLP (para 24). But this supervision of the subsequent use of the raised funds, with which the services were associated, seems to me to be an inevitable consequence of the CJEU’s interpretation of the PVD.’

    Judges:

    Lord Reed, Deputy President

    Lord Wilson

    Lord Hodge

    Lord Briggs

    Lady Arden

    Citations:

    [2019] UKSC 39, [2019] WLR 4849, 2019 GWD 23-374, [2020] 1 All ER 97, 2019 SLT 857, [2019] STI 1467, 2019 SCLR 959, [2019] STC 1549, [2019] BVC 37, [2019] 1 WLR 4849, UKSC 2018/0073

    Links:

    Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 2019 Mar 06 am Video, SC 2019 Mar 06 pm Video

    Statutes:

    Council Directive (EC) 2006/112/EC

    Jurisdiction:

    Scotland

    Citing:

    Cited – Rompelman v Minister van Financien (Judgment) ECJ 14-Feb-1985
    A trader who decided to acquire property for letting could claim repayment of VAT on the cost of a right to acquire a building which had not yet been constructed, let alone tenanted. . .
    Appeal From – Revenue and Customs, Appeal By Against A Decision of The Upper Tribunal In An Appeal By Frank A Smart and Son Limited SCS 8-Dec-2017
    . .
    Cited – Securenta Gottinger Immobilienanlagen und Vermogensmanagement AG / legal successor of Gottinger Vermogensanlagen AG v Finanzamt Gottingen ECJ 13-Mar-2008
    ECJ Sixth VAT Directive Taxable person simultaneously carrying out economic activities, taxable or exempt, and non-economic activities Right to deduct input VAT Expenditure connected with the issue of shares and . .
    Cited – BLP Group v Commissioners of Customs and Excise ECJ 6-Apr-1995
    The use of taxable goods for an exempt transaction disallowed a claim against VAT input tax. The use in that provision of the words ‘for transactions’ shows that to give the right to deduct under paragraph 2, the goods or services in question must . .
    Cited – Investrand BV v Staatssecretaris van Financien (Taxation) ECJ 8-Feb-2007
    Europa Sixth VAT Directive Article 17(2) Right to deduct Costs related to advisory services obtained in the course of arbitration proceedings to establish the amount of a claim that forms part of a company’s . .
    Cited – Kretztechnik AG v Finanzamt Linz ECJ 26-May-2005
    Europa Sixth VAT Directive – Supplies for consideration – Share issue – Admission of a company to a stock exchange – Deductibility of VAT).
    Kretztechnik’s objects were the development and sale of . .
    Cited – Mohr v Finanzamt Bad Segeberg ECJ 29-Feb-1996
    ECJ Articles 6(1) and 11(A)(1)(a) of the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, in respect of the definition of a supply of services . .
    Cited – Cibo Participations ECJ 27-Sep-2001
    . .
    Cited – Abbey National Plc v Commissioners of Customs and Excise ECJ 22-Feb-2001
    Where a part or whole of a business was sold as a going concern, not all the VAT on the expenses of the sale was to be set off against VAT. The entire amount of VAT could only be set off where the assets sold were sold as a properly identifiable . .
    Cited – Midland Bank plc v Customs and Excise Commissioners ECJ 8-Jun-2000
    If there is a clear and direct link between the purchase of goods and their use in output transactions on which VAT was payable, input tax was deductible even if VAT was not deductible in respect of all the supplies. Where the link is indirect than . .
    Cited – Intercommunale voor Zeewaterontzilting v Belgium (Judgment) ECJ 29-Feb-1996
    The principle that VAT was reclaimable on the cost of acquiring a right later to purchase land to be used for VATable trade was applied to allow deduction of VAT on the cost of a study undertaken by a company in order to decide whether to commence . .
    Cited – Belgische Staat v Ghent Coal Terminal (Judgment) ECJ 15-Jan-1998
    Once a right of deduction had been exercised because the inputs were for the purpose of investment work intended to be used in connection with taxable transactions, the authorities may not claim repayment merely because the taxpayer has been unable . .
    Cited – Rompelman and Rompelman-Van Deelen v Minister Van Financien ECJ 14-Feb-1985
    The economic activities referred to in article 4(1) of the sixth directive on the harmonization of the laws of the member states relating to turnover taxes may consist in several consecutive transactions. The preparatory acts, such as the . .
    Cited – The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of The University of Cambridge ECJ 3-Jul-2019
    Reference for a preliminary ruling – Value added tax (VAT) – Deduction of input tax – Management costs of an endowment fund that makes investments with the aim of financing the whole of the taxable person’s output transactions – Overheads . .
    Cited – Revenue and Customs v University of Cambridge CA 27-Mar-2018
    The court decided to make a reference to the CJEU because it concluded that the correct approach to be taken to the issue of attribution was not acte clair. . .
    Cited – Sveda UAB v Valstybine mokesciu inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansu ministerijos ECJ 22-Oct-2015
    ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – VAT – Directive 2006/112/EC – Article 168 – Right of deduction – Deduction of input VAT on the acquisition or production of capital goods – Recreational path . .
    Cited – Lennartz v Finanzamt Munchen III ECJ 11-Jul-1991
    (Judgment) Article 20(2) of the Sixth Directive, which concerns adjustments to the deductions of value added tax initially made in respect of capital goods, does no more than establish the procedure for calculating the adjustments to the initial . .
    Cited – Klub OOD (Vat) v Direktor Na Direktsia ECJ 22-Mar-2012
    ECJ VAT – Directive 2006/112/EC – Article 168 – Right of deduction – Origin of the right of deduction – Right of a company to deduct the input VAT paid for the acquisition of capital goods not yet brought into . .
    Cited – EON Aset Menidjmunt OOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ – Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite ECJ 16-Feb-2012
    ECJ VAT – Directive 2006/112/EC – Articles 168 and 176 – Right of deduction – Condition relating to use of goods and services for the purposes of taxed transactions – Origin of the right to deduct – Motor vehicle . .
    Cited – Skatteverket v AB SKF (Taxation) ECJ 29-Oct-2009
    Sixth VAT Directive Articles 2, 4, 13B(d)(5) and 17 Directive 2006/112/EC Articles 2, 9, 135(1)(f) and 168 Disposal by a parent company of a subsidiary and of its holding in a controlled company Scope of VAT Exemption Supplies of services acquired . .
    Cited – Wellcome Trust Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise ECJ 10-Jul-1996
    It was because the purchase and sale of shares by a charitable trust was not an economic activity that the VAT paid on the fees for professional services relating to those transactions were not recoverable; there was no downstream economic activity . .
    Cited – Skatteverket v AB SKF (Taxation) ECJ 12-Feb-2009
    Europa VAT Interpretation of Articles 2, 4, 13B(d)(5) and 17 of the Sixth Directive, and of Articles 2, 9, 135(1)(f), 168 and 169 of Directive 2006/112/EC Disposal by a parent company of shares in a subsidiary . .
    Cited – Vereniging Noordelijke Land- En Tuinbouw Organisatie ECJ 22-Dec-2008
    Europa (Taxation) Articles 6 (2), first subparagraph, and 17 of the Sixth VAT Directive Goods and services used partly for the needs of the undertaking and partly for non-economic activities Concept of’ . .
    Cited – Hausgemeinschaft Jorg und Stefanie Wollny v Finanzamt Landshut ECJ 14-Sep-2006
    Europa Sixth VAT Directive – Article 11A(1)(c) – Use of property forming part of the assets of a business for private purposes by a taxable person – Treatment of that use as a supply of services for consideration . .
    Cited – Uudenkaupungin Kaupunki (Taxation) ECJ 30-Mar-2006
    Europa VAT – Deduction of input tax – Capital goods – Immovable property – Adjustment of deductions. . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    VAT, European, Agriculture

    Updated: 18 April 2022; Ref: scu.640087

    Booker Aquaculture Ltd v Secretary of State for Scotland: OHCS 24 Sep 1998

    Where a fish farmer’s crop had been ordered to be destroyed for disease control, but there was no provision in the regulations for compensation for the losses, the regulation was unlawful as breach of European law.

    Citations:

    Times 24-Sep-1998

    Statutes:

    Fish Health Regulations 1992 (1992 No 3300)

    Jurisdiction:

    Scotland

    Cited by:

    Appeal from – Reclaiming Motion In Pet of Booker Aquaculture Ltd v The Secretary of State for Scotland for Judicial Review of the Regulations SCS 12-Aug-1999
    . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Agriculture

    Updated: 16 April 2022; Ref: scu.78483

    Stewart v Williamson: SCS 13 Jul 1909

    Citations:

    [1909] SLR 918

    Links:

    Bailii

    Jurisdiction:

    Scotland

    Cited by:

    At SCS – Stewart v Williamson HL 29-Apr-1910
    A lease of a sheep farm for five years expiring at Whitsunday 1909. provided that at the expiry of the lease ‘the tenant shall leave the sheep stock on the farm to the proprietors or incoming tenant according to the valuation of men mutually chosen, . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Arbitration, Agriculture

    Updated: 15 April 2022; Ref: scu.611008

    Davies v H and E Ecroyd Ltd: ChD 1996

    The partnership was made up of a 109 acre dairy holding owned by one partner, and the second partner managed the business. The dairy holding itself was kept out of the partnership assets by explicit agreement. D, the former manager claimed, on the partnership being dissolved, that a milk quota had become a partnership asset by dint of his efforts.
    Held: The value of the quota was not on a par with the agricultural holding, since it arose only after the partnership commenced. A court should not extend what the partners had set out in the agreement.
    Blackburn J set out the basis for giving partners rights in relation to the asset of a partner as follows: ‘It arises where a partnership expends money for the benefit of a partner in circumstances where justice requires that, in taking partnership accounts, some allowance should be made to the partnership against that partner for some or all of the amount of the expenditure or of the enhanced value brought about by the expenditure.’

    Judges:

    Blackburne J

    Citations:

    [1996] 30 EG 97, (1996) 2 EGLR 5

    Statutes:

    Arbitration Act 1979 2

    Jurisdiction:

    England and Wales

    Citing:

    Applied – Faulks v Faulks ChD 1992
    One brother, as tenant farmed land under a partnership with his brother. On the death of either partner, an account was to be taken and a valuation. On the death of the tenant, there was a dispute as to whether the value of the farm’s milk quotahad . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Company, Agriculture

    Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.458597

    Millington v Secretary of State for the Environment: QBD 1999

    The court commented on provisions in a circular as to the correctness of imposing planning conditions where it was thought that they might not be fulfilled: ‘I think that that footnote is mistaken. Certainly the case leaves it open to the Secretary of State to refuse to impose such a condition if there are reasons other than the unlikelihood of implementation. But the unlikelihood of implementation is not by itself a sufficient reason to refuse, and allowing it to be policy cannot make it so.’

    Judges:

    Judge Rich QC

    Citations:

    (1999) 1 PLR 36

    Jurisdiction:

    England and Wales

    Cited by:

    Appeal from – Millington v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and Regions v Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council CA 25-Jun-1999
    The fact that a new product was made on agricultural land from produce grown elsewhere on the land did not make that production process non-agricultural. The making of wine is capable of being agricultural use, and being thus free from planning . .
    Cited – Douglas John Merritt v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions and Mendip District Council Admn 5-Aug-1999
    The applicant appealed refusal of planning permission for residential development of a small plot of land. The said that the inspector had wrongly rejected the application of a Grampian condition on the basis that it would not be fulfilled and also . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Planning, Agriculture

    Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.229041

    Guimont: ECJ 5 Dec 2000

    (Judgment) Measures having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction – Purely internal situation – Manufacture and marketing of Emmenthal cheese without rind

    Citations:

    [2000] ECR I-10663, C-448/98, [2000] EUECJ C-448/98

    Links:

    Bailii

    Jurisdiction:

    European

    Agriculture

    Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.162562

    The Queen v Ministry Of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Ex Parte Agegate: ECJ 14 Dec 1989

    The court considered the legality of licensing conditions imposed by the United Kingdom upon licences to fish issued under the Sea Fish Conservation Act 1967. One of those conditions required 75% of the crew to reside ashore in the United Kingdom.
    Held: The condition was unlawful under the Treaty.

    Citations:

    C-3/87, [1989] ECR 4459

    Cited by:

    Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Transport ex parte Factortame Limited and others CA 31-Jul-1997
    The court was asked to award damages for the failure of the respondent to comply with European Law, on the basis that the provisions of the Act discriminated against nationals of other member states. . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    European, Agriculture

    Updated: 11 April 2022; Ref: scu.134544