Agriculture - 2000

The case shown here are derived from the lawindexpro case law database. lawindexpro is a low cost case law database, with over 260,000 case listings, and over 200,000 links to full text judgments. The free service below shows the core information on the case, but is restricted in several ways. A small proportion of cases do allow access to the full lawindexpro information. These cases are selected at random, and may be different on your next visit. The active links through to lawindexpro are extremely powerful allowing full access to all linked cases.  

This page lists 15 cases, and was prepared on 04 January 2012.

Barrett and others -v- Morgan [2000] 2 WLR 285; [2000] UKHL 1; [2000] 2 AC 264; [2000] 1 All ER 481
27 Jan 2000 HL Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Woolf Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Millett	Landlord and Tenant, Agriculture	1 Cites 1 Citers
	The landlord served a notice to quit on the head tenant under an understanding that the head tenant would not serve a counter notice. The effect was to determine the head and sub-tenancy. It acted as a notice to quit, and despite the consensual nature of the deal, it was not in law a surrender. Sub-tenants had no protection in such situations. The lacuna was recognised, but parliament had done nothing to provide any such protection. "I reject the proposition that the service of a notice to quit by either party by pre-arrangement with the other is "a consensual transaction which is tantamount to a surrender" since unlike a surrender it does not need the consent of the recipient to be effective. The proposition that such a transaction is incapable of determining a sub-tenancy is not tenable and does not gain by the substitution of the pejorative word "collusive" for the word "consensual". "
	Agricultural Holdings Act 1986
	Link[s] omitted

J A Pye and Another -v- Graham and Another [2000] Ch 676; [2000] 3 All ER 865
14 Mar 2000 ChD Neuberger J	Agriculture, Land, Limitation	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The fact alone of being prepared to take a licence of land would not defeat an application for adverse possession, but a request for a licence would be relevant. The adverse possession commenced from the time when the licence expired, given that a sufficient animus was then established. The reference in the section to the taking of action did not apply to an application to warn off the cautions made to the Land Registry which was not a court, and the application was not an application to recover land. Since the Grahams enjoyed factual possession of the land from January 1984, and adverse possession took effect from September 1984, the applicant company's title was extinguished pursuant to the 1980 Act, and the Grahams were entitled to be registered as proprietors of the land. "[The Grahams] sought rights to graze or cut grass on the land after the summer of 1984, and were quite prepared to pay. When Pye failed to respond they did what any other farmer in their position would have done: they continued to farm the land. They were not at fault. But the result of Pye's inaction was that they enjoyed the full use of the land without payment for 12 years. As if that were not gain enough, they are then rewarded by obtaining title to this considerable area of valuable land without any obligation to compensate the former owner in any way at all. In the case of unregistered land, and in the days before registration became the norm, such a result could no doubt be justified as avoiding protracted uncertainty where the title to land lay. But where land is registered it is difficult to see any justification for a legal rule which compels such an apparently unjust result, and even harder to see why the party gaining title should not be required to pay some compensation at least to the party losing it. It is reassuring to learn that the Land Registration Act 2002 has addressed the risk that a registered owner may lose his title through inadvertence. But the main provisions of that Act have not yet been brought into effect, and even if they had it would not assist Pye, whose title had been lost before the passing of the Act. While I am satisfied that the appeal must be allowed for the reasons given by my noble and learned friend, this is a conclusion which I (like the judge [Neuberger J]...) 'arrive at with no enthusiasm'.”
	Limitation Act 1980 15(1) 17

Tempest (t/a Cesspool Sid) -v- Commissioners of Customs and Excise
16 Mar 2000 ChD	Road Traffic, Transport, Agriculture
	The taxpayer owned and operated vehicles for discharging cesspool waste over agricultural land. He sought to reclaim the rebate entitlement for heavy oil. It was held that the four wheeled vehicles were off-the-road vehicles even if they would be driven on roads to and from the work sites. It was not an agricultural vehicle but was entitled as an off road vehicle if it was not otherwise entitled to a rebate, if it was designed and constructed mainly for use off the roads, and if it could not exceed 25 mph under its own power.
	Hydrocarbon Oil Duty Act 1979

Association Greenpeace France and Others -v- Ministère de l'Agriculture et de la Pêche and Others C-6/99; [2000] EUECJ C-6/99
21 Mar 2000 ECJ	European, Agriculture
	Europa 1. Directive 90/220 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms, as amended by Directive 97/35, is to be interpreted as meaning that, if, after an application for placing a GMO on the market has been forwarded to the Commission, no Member State has raised an objection, in accordance with Article 13(2) of that directive, or if the Commission has taken a favourable decision under paragraph (4) of that provision, the competent authority which forwarded the application, with a favourable opinion, to the Commission must issue the consent in writing, allowing the product to be placed on the market. However, if in the meantime the Member State concerned has new information which leads it to consider that the product for which notification has been received may constitute a risk to human health and the environment, it will not be obliged to give its consent, provided that it immediately informs the Commission and the other Member States about the new information in order that, within the period laid down in Article 16(2) of Directive 90/220, a decision may be taken in the matter in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 21 of that directive. 2. Where the national court finds that, owing to irregularities in the conduct of the examination of the notification by the competent national authority provided for in Article 12(1) of Directive 90/220 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms, as amended by Directive 97/35, it was not proper for that authority to forward the dossier with a favourable opinion to the Commission as provided for in paragraph (2) of that provision, that court must refer the matter to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling if it considers that those irregularities are such as to affect the validity of the Commission's favourable decision, if necessary ordering the suspension of application of the measures for implementing that decision until the Court of Justice has ruled on the question of validity.
	Link[s] omitted

Elliott -v- Agrevo UK Ltd [2000] EWHC Technology 118
7 Apr 2000 TCC	Nuisance, Agriculture
	The claimant sought damages in nuisance, saying that his produce was adversely affected the by the escape of herbicides from the defendant's neighbouring farm.
	Link[s] omitted

Bracken -v- East Hertfordshire District Council
11 May 2000 QBD	Agriculture, Planning
	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.
	Town and Country Planning Act 1990 179(2)

Regina -v- Minister for Agriculture Fisheries and Foods and Secretary of State for Wales ex parte Mott [2000] EWHC Admin 339
12 May 2000 Admn	Agriculture
	National Salmon Byelaws 1999
	Link[s] omitted

Hawkins -v- Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and Another
25 May 2000 QBD	Planning, Agriculture
	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.
	Town and Country Planning Act 1990 288

Quentin Mayne and Chitty Wholesale Ltd -v- Ministry of Agriculture ,Fisheries and Food [2000] EWHC Admin 368
13 Jul 2000 Admn	Agriculture
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Daventry District Council ex parte Thornby Farms [2000] EWHC Admin 382
28 Jul 2000 Admn Lord Justice Pill, Lord Justice Robert Walker, And Mr Justice Laddie	Animals, Agriculture, Environment, European	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The council granted licences for the disposal of waste animal carcasses by incineration. The objectors said the council had failed to take note of art 4 of the directive, and that as clinical waste alternative regimes applied. Held: Animal waste and clinical waste were properly distinguished, and the council had applied the correct guidance. The council was entitled to assume on the evidence that no way of preventing the emissions was available. The requirements of the legislation should have been read to impose a continuing obligation to assess not just the machinery used, but also additional available steps to reduce emissions to a minimum. Nevertheless the decision stood. In the second case, there was no obligation to refuse planning permissions either because there is no immediate need for the land or because the relevant decision makes no positive contribution towards meeting the objective. Appeals refused.
	Hazardous Waste Directive 91/689/EEC - Controlled Waste Regulations 1992 - Environmental Protection Act 1990 - Council Directive 75/442/EEC, as amended by 91/156/EEC and 96/350/EEC Waste Framework Directive. Article 4 - Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994 (1994/1056) - Animal Waste Directive (90/425/EEC) - Air Pollution Directive (84/360/EEC) - Animal By-products Order 1992 (SI 1992 No 3303)
	Link[s] omitted

Mayne and Another -v- Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [2001] EHLR 5
3 Aug 2000 QBD Kennedy LJ and Jackson	Administrative, Crime, European, Agriculture	Casemap 1 Citers
	The defendants exported beef without the requisite certificates. The UK rules had been made before a Directive came into effect. On appeal after conviction the defendant argued that the rules purported to take account of future amendments. It was held that for a criminal sanction to be applicable, Regulations could not give effect to directives made by a third party without appropriate and explicit incorporation of those amendments. A regulation imposing sanctions for failure to comply with an EC Directive is not to be read as applying to future amendments to the Directive unless the wording of the regulations is such as clearly to take account of the possibility of future amendments.

Knapdale (Nominees) Ltd -v- Donald and Another
22 Aug 2000 OHCS	Agriculture, Landlord and Tenant
	Despite the requirement for statutory notices, an agricultural tenancy could be terminated by an implied agreement for surrender. Nevertheless, a formal lease to a partnership was not to be deemed to be surrendered on the death of one partner, where the lease had been entered into in circumstances which suggested that the tenants did not appreciate technical the legal significance of the documents.
	Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991 21(1)

Regina -v- Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food , Ex Parte J H Cooke & Sons C-372/98; [2000] EUECJ C-372/98
12 Oct 2000 ECJ	Agriculture, European
	Land which in the prior year had been used temporarily for the growth of grass for silage purposes did not lose its eligibility for set-aside payments. The legislation imposed no definition which could justify the interpretation sought by the Ministry. The only land excluded was land set aside permanently for such purposes as pasture or other non-agricultural uses. The test was whether the cultivated with a view to harvest. The United Kingdom could not be excused repayment of fines already levied, since nothing the Commission has done had added to the Ministry's mistake.
	Council Regulation (EEC) No 1762/92 with regard to the set-aside scheme
	Link[s] omitted

Pickles -v- Greenbank [2000] EWCA Civ 264
20 Oct 2000 CA	Agriculture, Landlord and Tenant	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	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.
	Link[s] omitted

Emsland-Stärke GmbH -v- Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas C-110/99; [2000] ECR I-11569; [2000] EUECJ C-110/99
14 Dec 2000 ECJ	European, VAT, Agriculture	Casemap
	Europa Articles 9(1), 10(1) and 20(2) to (6) of Regulation No 2730/79 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, in the version resulting from Regulation No 568/85, must be interpreted as meaning that a Community exporter can forfeit his right to payment of a non-differentiated export refund if (a) the product in respect of which the export refund was paid, and which is sold to a purchaser established in a non-member country, is, immediately after its release for home use in that non-member country, transported back to the Community under the external Community transit procedure and is there released for home use on payment of import duties, without any infringement being established and (b) that operation constitutes an abuse on the part of that Community exporter. A finding that there is an abuse presupposes an intention on the part of the Community exporter to benefit from an advantage as a result of the application of the Community rules by artificially creating the conditions for obtaining it. Evidence of this must be placed before the national court in accordance with the rules of national law, for instance by establishing that there was collusion between that exporter and the importer of the goods into the non-member country. The fact that, before being re-imported into the Community, the product was sold by the purchaser established in the non-member country concerned to an undertaking also established in that country with which he has personal and commercial links is one of the facts which can be taken into account by the national court when ascertaining whether the conditions giving rise to an obligation to repay refunds are fulfilled.
	Link[s] omitted