The tenant farmer served two notices both referring the landlord’s notice to quit to arbitration (s28(4)) and also a counter-notice (s28(2)). The landlord said he could not serve both and had not identified which he wished to proceed upon. No referral in fact took place.
Held: The legislation contemplated only one decision about the tenancy, but the provisions could not be read to limit the tenant to only one way forward. They had simply not foreseen the tenant’s choice. Neither by itself began proceedings, that was for the landlord. Two sets of proceedings should not be allowed to go ahead, and a tenant’s preference for arbitration would be given sway, but the choice given to the landlord was not burdensome.
Judges:
Leveson J
Citations:
Times 08-Apr-2005, [2005] EWHC 462 (Admin)
Links:
Statutes:
Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 28(2), Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1954 6(2)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Clegg v Fraser 1982
The court considered at what level a point of law would justify reference from an arbitration to the High Court. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Agriculture, Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.223857
