[2024] UKUT 149 (LC)

In case we are wrong to distinguish Farmer v Buxted we go on to consider whether the three buildings were occupied together with either the arable land at Chequer Tree Farm or the Fridays’ Farms, in the sense of forming a single agricultural unit with them.

In order to do that we have to consider what an “agricultural unit” is. This is not a statutory term. Lord Slynn in introducing it as part of the meaning of “occupied together with”, refrained from defining it, save to say that it is not the same as a farm. It was the extension of the legislation to include buildings occupied together with other buildings that led Lord Slynn to say “it is not right now to ask whether the two premises constituted one 'farm' in the ordinary sense”, and that is perhaps the best clue we have as to what an “agricultural unit” is.

In explaining why the factory was not a single unit with the broiler houses Lord Slynn pointed out (at page 379) that it had not been suggested that any two of the broiler houses formed a single unit; that being the case, and having regard to their physical separation, he said that it was not possible to conclude that any of the 48 farms was “occupied with” the factory. From that we can conclude that being an agricultural unit must be something to do with management; the problem was that the 48 farms were each run separately rather than being a unit with one or more others. And it seems that proximity is important although not definitive.

So: are the three buildings worked together with the arable land at Chequer Tree Farm in the sense of being worked as a single agricultural unit? We think not. They were under common ownership and common occupation, they were contiguous and they were part of the same business enterprise of producing eggs for sale. But they were functionally independent. Each was managed by Fridays Limited but through different individuals. The arable land was used to produce grain, which was used to supply the Fridays Farms but did not have to be; it could have been sold. So the connection between the arable land and the Fridays Farms was thin; the arable land and the farms could have been run without that connection. And the only functional connection between the arable land and the three buildings is the Fridays Farms, which took the grain and produced the eggs.

So on the Farmer v Buxted understanding of “occupied together with” we find that the three buildings were not occupied together with the arable land at Chequer Tree Farm. Their operations and management were not connected with each other.

Next, are the three buildings occupied together with the Fridays Farms in the sense of being worked as a single agricultural unit? Again they are under common ownership and occupation; they were not contiguous but they are all near each other; and they were part of the same business enterprise of producing eggs for sale. But were they sufficiently functionally close to be described as a single unit?

It is not possible to sell loose eggs. Even at a garden gate with an honesty box they have to be in an egg box or tray of some kind. But the individual farms are able to cope with that by putting the eggs into the keyes trays on pallets. But it is also impossible to sell eggs that have not been graded and weighed, and that is what the Fridays Farms themselves cannot do. We have seen the equipment involved; it is big and costly and it is obviously a process that has to be to some extent centralised. That is why the independent farms send their 1.4 million eggs a week to Chequer Tree Farm because they too do not have the equipment to do what is needed in order to sell their eggs (which is the point of the operation).

Accordingly we take the view that despite their not being contiguous with Chequer Tree Farm and the three buildings – although they are not far away – the Fridays Farms are operated as a single agricultural unit with the three buildings and vice versa. Neither is any use without the other.