National Trust for Places of Historic Interest v Birden: ChD 31 Jul 2009

The parties had entered into an old-form share farm agreement in 1994. The tenant later became a farm business tenant on other land. The claimant sought a share of the Single Payment Scheme calculated with reference to the period in which the defendant had been their tenant, seeking to imply a term into the agreement for this purpose. The tenant denied that there had been any agency for the claimant.
Held: The agreement covered existing subsidy schemes only, and ‘Taken as a whole, the purpose of the clause was to ensure that under the existing scheme, even though the entitlement to subsidy was that of the farmer, i.e. Mr Birden, on the termination of the Agreement Mr Birden would make no claim to retain the quota. He made no such claim. It was implicit that the quota belonging to NT would be transferred back to NT. This Mr Birden attempted to do, but was not permitted to do so because of the way that the new scheme was interpreted by DEFRA and the Rural Payment Agency.’
Furthermore, the condition for payment arose from the defendants current activities, and was only calculated by reference to his historic activities including the agreement at issue. As to the agency, the claimant had drafted the agreement to include for its own protection, a denial of the existence of any agency. The claim failed.

Toulmin CMG QC J
[2009] EWHC 2023 (Ch)
Bailii
Council Regulation (EC) No.1782/2003, Commission Regulation (EC) No.795/2004
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedPease and Another v McMillan and Others CA 2-Apr-2009
A farm had been sold subject to a farm tenancy and with an obligation to secure vacant possession. The parties disputed the assignment of the Single Payment farm subsidy.
Held: The 2003 Council Regulation provides a scheme for single payments . .
CitedParagon Finance Plc (Formerly Known As National Home Loans Corporation Plc v D B Thakerar and Co (a Firm); Ranga and Co (a Firm) and Sterling Financial Services Limited CA 21-Jul-1998
Where an action had been begun on basis of allegations of negligence and breach of trust, new allegations of fraud where quite separate new causes of claim, and went beyond amendments and were disallowed outside the relevant limitation period. . .
CitedBanner Homes Group Plc v Luff Developments and Another CA 10-Feb-2000
Competing building companies agreed not to bid against each other for the purchase of land. One proceeded and the other asserted that the land was then held on trust for the two parties as a joint venture.
Held: Although there was no formal . .
CitedGarnac Grain Co Inc v HMF Faure and Fairclough PC 1967
The Board was asked what was necessary to establish the raltionship of principal and agent.
Held: In the essence of agency is the element of consent.
Where there is an available market for the goods, the market price is determined as at . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Agriculture

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.368642