[2024] UKUT 149 (LC)

As we saw above, in Farmer v Buxted the House of Lords looked at the meaning of “occupied together with”, and concluded that there was more to it than a requirement that activities on the land and in the building be jointly controlled and managed, at the same time, together with perhaps a degree of geographic connection; it was also necessary for them to be “occupied together so as to form in a real sense a single agricultural unit”, or “worked together so as to form one agricultural unit.” Mr Williams KC argued that that this is more than a functional relationship; the fact that grain grown at Chequer Tree Farm is fed to chickens elsewhere who lay eggs that are packed in the three buildings is not enough to establish that the buildings form a single agricultural unit either with the arable land at Chequer Tree Farm or with the Fridays Farms.

Mr Williams KC set out and adopted what the VTE said about whether the three buildings are occupied together with the land at Chequer Tree Farm at paragraph 20 of its decision:

As to the Fridays Farms, the President of the VTE said at his paragraph 22:

Again Mr Williams KC said that that was correct. And he argued that the same approach to “occupied together with” was found in Senova, and also in the Tribunal’s decision in Wootton v Gill (VO) [2015] UKUT 548.

For the appellant, Mr Ormondroyd submitted that the reasoning in Farmer v Buxted is no longer applicable to the legislation in its current form; paragraph 3 of Schedule 5 has been amended since Farmer v Buxted was decided and the consequence of the amendment is that “occupied together with” can no longer mean “worked together so as to form one agricultural unit” with the land together with which the building is occupied.

In summary, according to Mr Ormondroyd, a building can satisfy the definition of an agricultural building if it is occupied together with agricultural land but used solely in connection with agricultural operations on other land. Occupation and use no longer have to relate to the same land – in contrast with the position when Farmer v Buxted was decided. Where a building is occupied together with agricultural land it is therefore no longer necessary to find that it is worked as an agricultural unit with that land; all the “working”- the functional connection - can be done in connection with other land. Accordingly there is no barrier to finding that the three buildings are occupied together with the arable land at Chequer Tree Farm

The respondent’s answer to that is that where words in a statute are unamended their meaning must be regarded as unchanged; the words “occupied together with” have not changed and the analysis in Farmer v Buxted remains authoritative. And it is not possible to say that the three buildings are “worked together with” either the land at Chequer Tree Farm, or the other Fridays’ Farms, as an agricultural unit; they are not worked together, their functional connection is too distant.

In the course of the hearing the Tribunal asked Mr Williams KC if he construed the words “that or other agricultural land” to mean “that land, or that and other agricultural land” and he confirmed that he did. He argued that the 2003 amendment extended exemption to cover buildings occupied by Farmer A together with agricultural land and used in connection with agricultural operations not only on that land but also on the land of Farmers B and C who share the equipment stored in the building. Prior to the amendment the shared use would have ruled out exemption but now it does not. The amendment did not go so far as to exempt buildings that are not used in connection with the land together with which it is occupied.

Mr Ormondroyd referred in his skeleton argument to the explanation given by Mr Nick Raynsford MP, one of the promoters of the Bill, in response to questions in committee, with added emphasis:

Mr Ormondroyd maintained that the effect of the amendment is that a building may be used solely in connection with agricultural operations on land beyond the land together with which it is occupied.

Finally and in any event Mr Ormondroyd contended that the three buildings are occupied together with the arable land at Chequer Tree Farm, and with the Fridays Farms, whether or not we accept his argument that the “agricultural unit” interpretation in Famer v Buxted is not applicable to the statute as it now stands. As to the arable land at Chequer Tree Farm, he argued that it and the three buildings are in common occupation by Fridays, are controlled together as part of Fridays’ farming enterprise and both used as part of the egg farming operation, managed from the Chequer Tree Farm offices, as well as being physically contiguous and part of the same hereditament.

As to the Fridays Farms Mr Ormondroyd said that they too are in common occupation by Fridays, are controlled together as part of Fridays’ farming enterprise and used as part of the egg farming operation, managed from the Chequer Tree Farm offices. Moreover they are used directly together in the process of producing eggs for sale, and although not contiguous are close enough to form a single agricultural unit.