[2024] UKUT 304 (LC)

My primary finding is that the farm partnership is in occupation of the whole of the Farm including both yards.

Mrs Bailey is a partner in the partnership and was the only person capable of running the licenced racing yard as the licence was in her name, but it is the partnership that provides the site, carries out repairs, pays for the outgoings including staff and reaps the benefit in terms of earnings. The partners share a common purpose, namely to make a profit from the land and buildings that comprise the Farm from a variety of activities undertaken from it by the various partners. The Farm and the licenced racing yard are occupied together by the partnership but in order to satisfy BHA licensing, the use of some of the buildings and yard space are restricted to the stabling and training of horses under the control of Mrs Bailey. Toby Saunders and Mrs Bailey utilise separate parts of the Farm for different purposes but they jointly occupy the whole for a shared purpose, namely the profitable operation of the partnership.

The buildings and yard space that constitute the licenced racing yard are capable of being a separate hereditament in that they could be separately identified on a plan and they could be separately occupied by a third party. But there would be both legal and practical obstacles to any such third party occupancy. The tenancy agreement prohibits subletting, and it would be necessary to obtain the landlord’s consent to a sub tenancy. Satisfactory access and sharing arrangements would need to be negotiated and a solution found to the division of utilities. None of these adjustments are currently required because the business conducted from the licenced yard is simply one aspect of the wider business conducted by the partnership.

I find that at the material day the partners, including Mrs Bailey, were in joint rateable occupation of the licenced racing yard and the remainder of the Farm.

Mr Bailey was in occupation of the point-to-point yard with the permission of Toby Saunders and without any formal tenancy or other occupancy agreement. He was not a member of the partnership but the partnership provided the buildings he occupied and met the costs of the operation he managed. If it made a profit the benefit went to the partnership. This yard was also capable of separate occupation subject to the same provisos that apply to the licenced yard.