swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Agriculture - From: 1960 To: 1969
This page lists 9 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
Fawcett Properties Ltd v Buckingham County Council [1961] AC 636; [1960] 3 All ER 503
1960
HL
Lord Keith of Avonholm, Lord Denning
Planning, Agriculture
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."
Town and Country Planning Act 1947 14(1)
1 Cites
1 Citers
Mansi v Elstree Rural District Council (1964) 16 P & CR 158
1964
QBD
Widgery J
Planning, Agriculture
The local planning authority served an enforcement notice reciting that the appellant had changed the use of a glasshouse on a nursery garden from use for agricultural purposes to the use for the sale of goods and requiring the appellant to discontinue the latter use. No reference was made in the notice to the former subsidiary use for the retail sale of nursery produce and other articles nor was there any provision for its continuance. The court held that the Minister ought to have amended the notice under the powers given to him so as to make it perfectly clear that the notice did not prevent the appellant from using the premises for the sale of goods by retail, provided that such sale was on the scale and in the manner to which he was entitled in 1959, as the Minister himself had found. True that use was a subsidiary one, but nevertheless it should be protected and, in my judgment, this appeal should be allowed to the extent that the decision in question should be sent back to the Minister with a direction that he ought to amend the notice so as to safeguard the appellant's established right as found by the Minister to carry on retail trade in the manner and to the extent to which the Minister had found it was carried on in 1959.
1 Citers
Verrall v Farnes [1966] 1 WLR 1254
1966
Cross J
Landlord and Tenant, Agriculture
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."
Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 2
Williams v Minister of Housing and Local Government (1967) 18 PCR 514; (1967) 111 Sol Jo 559; (1967) LGR 495; (1967) 203 EG 688
1967
QBD
Planning, Agriculture
The appellant land-owner had bought it with an established business selling by retail from it vegetables and fruits and flowers grown on the land. He made minor alterations to the shop and began to sell also a number of oranges bananas and lemons which he had imported. This amounted to some 10% of his total sales. An enforcement notice was served as to these new sales, the authority saying that this was a change of use requiring permission, and a discontinuance of the retail shop. On reference, the Minister took the view that the mode of use of the building before the purchase was merely incidental to its use as a nursery, but that the change by addition of the sale of imported produce changed the character of the use amounting to a material change within section 12(1). Permission had been required and had been properly refused. The land owner appealed. Held: When asking whether a material change had occurred, the proper unit for consideration was the land and building as a whole. However, a change in the character of an ancillary use might amount to a material change in the use of the land as a whole.
The Minister had decided that the original and primary use was for agriculture with only an incidental use for the sale of produce from the land. That decision was correct, and he was entitled to conclude from it that the addition of sales of imported produce amounted to a change in the character of use. The change could not be disregarded as de minimis.
The court gave the opinion that had the building been considered in isolation, it would have had a retail shop use and it would have been arguable that a new permission would not have been required.
Town and Country Planning Act 1962 12(1) Part III
1 Citers
W Beus GmbH and Co v Hauptzollamt Munchen (Judgment) C-5/67
13 Mar 1968
ECJ
European, Agriculture
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.
Firma Milchwerke H. Wohrmann and Sohn Kg v Hauptzollamt Bad Reichenhall; ECJ 4-Apr-1968 - R-7/67; [1968] EUECJ R-7/67
Firma Milchwerke H Wohrmann and Sohn KG v Hauptzollamt Bad Reichenhall(Judgment) C-7/67
4 Apr 1968
ECJ
European, Agriculture
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.
Firma Schwarzwaldmilch GmbH v Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle fur Fettee (Judgment) C-4/68
11 Jul 1968
ECJ
European, Agriculture
Europa 1. Agriculture - common organization of the markets - milk - imports subject to the production of a licence - importation impossible during the term of validity of such licence - case of force majeure - ' engine failure ' within the meaning of article 6(3) of regulation no 136/64/eec of the commission - concept 2. Force majeure - concept 3. Agriculture - common organization of the markets - milk - importation subject to the production of a licence - importation impossible during the term of validity of such licence - case of force majeure relied on by the importer - evidence to be adduced (regulation no 136/64/eec, article 6(2)) 4. Agriculture - common organization of the markets - milk - importation subject to the production of a licence - importation impossible during the term of validity of such licence - case of force majeure - national courts - jurisdiction in cases not referred to in article 6(3) or not recognized by the national authorities in accordance with article 6(4) of regulation no 136/64/eec 1. The concept of ' engine failure ' referred to in article 6(3) of regulation no 136/64/eec does not include failures which occur in machinery intended for the production of goods. 2. As the concept of force majeure is not identical in the different branches of law and the various fields of application, the significance of this concept must be determined on the basis of the legal framework within which it is intended to take effect. Recognition of a case of force majeure presupposes that the consequences of the unusual event to which this concept relates cannot be avoided. 3. Within the meaning of regulation no 136/64/eec, when an importer relies on force majeure he must show that he was unable to effect the importation within the period laid down as a result of unusual circumstances outside his control, the consequences of which, in spite of the exercise of all due care on his part, he could not have avoided except at the cost of excessive sacrifice. 4. The courts of member states may, within the limits of their own jurisdiction, recognize the existence of a case of force majeure not only when the situation relied on is included in those enumerated in article 6(3) or when it has been recognized by the national authorities in accordance with paragraph (4), but also in other specific cases which justify the application of the exemption referred to in article 6(2).
Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Judgment) C-45/64
19 Nov 1969
ECJ
European, Agriculture
1. Internal taxation - non-discrimination - potable spirits (EEC treaty, article 95) 2. Agriculture - potable spirits - not an agricultural product (regulation no 7) 3. Agriculture - establishment of the common market - exceptions - strict interpretation. 1. The taxation of potable spirits imported from one member state on the basis of a notional alcoholic content amounts to discrimination incompatible with article 95 of the EEC treaty. 2. As potable spirits are not agricultural products (regulation no 7(a) of 18 December 1959) they are not subject to the provisions of articles 39 to 46 of the treaty. 3. In agriculture the permitted derogations 3. In agriculture the permitted derogations from certain rules laid down for the establishment of the common market are exceptions and as such must be strictly interpreted.