ARTICLE
4 September 2024

Land Court Rules In Favour Of Tenant In Agricultural Improvement Case

Sa
Shepherd and Wedderburn LLP

Contributor

Shepherd and Wedderburn is a leading, independent Scottish-headquartered UK law firm, with offices in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, London and Dublin. With a history stretching back to 1768, establishing long-standing relationships of trust, rooted in legal advice and client service of the highest quality, is our hallmark.
In The Trustees of the Eighth Earl Cadogan's 1961 Settlement Trust v. Neil Butler and Linsey Butler [2024] CSIH 22, the Inner House of the Court of Session upheld the Land Court's decision allowing Neil and Linsey Butler to erect a general-purpose agricultural building despite the landlord's objections. The Land Court ruled that the improvement was reasonable for efficient management of the farm, focusing on agricultural necessity rather than the tenant's dairying use. The appeal by the landlo
United Kingdom Real Estate and Construction
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

The Trustees of the Eighth Earl Cadogan's 1961 Settlement Trust v Neil Butler and Linsey Butler [2024] CSIH 22

Hamish Lean acted for Neil and Linsey Butler (the "tenant") in their recent success in a case raised against their landlord, the Trustees of the Eighth Earl Cadogan's 1961 Settlement Trust. The case concerned the tenant's proposal to carry out an agricultural improvement, which was objected to by the landlord.

The tenant served an improvement notice to erect a large general-purpose agricultural building. The landlord's existing buildings ranged from 50 to 70 years old and were very close to the end of their working life. They were also poorly situated with inadequate access.

Although the building that the tenant proposed to erect was a general-purpose building, it was intended to enhance their dairying operation.

The lease, whilst not prohibiting the tenant from carrying on a dairying enterprise, did make it clear that the tenant was not entitled to compensation for dairying improvements. The farm was let specifically for the growing of arable crops and livestock husbandry. The landlord's objection was that because the tenant was going to use the new building for dairying, the Land Court should not grant approval.

However, the Land Court decided that it should consider whether the proposed improvement was reasonable and desirable on agricultural grounds for the efficient management of the holding.

The Court said that that was an objective test and that the tenant's business practices were accordingly irrelevant. Improvements should only be approved where they are such as to be reasonably required to allow the tenant to carry out the type of farming specified in the lease.

The Court found on the evidence that the proposed building was reasonably required to carry out arable cropping and livestock husbandry. Accordingly, the Court allowed the improvement, and it will be subject to compensation at the end of the tenancy.

The landlord subsequently appealed the Land Court's decision to the Inner House of the Court of Session but the appeal was refused.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More