Smyth-Tyrrell and another v Bowden [2018] EWHC 106 (Ch) (2 February 2018).
Judgment has recently come out in a case that will be of interest to both landlords and tenants of rural property. The Claimants, Mr and Mrs Smyth-Tyrrell, were the tenants of 9.5 acres of land at Boswidjack Farm near Falmouth in Cornwall. Crucially, at the start of their tenancy the 9.5 acres was steep, overgrown and unfarmable and the buildings on the land, a house and barn, were derelict. The Defendant landlord’s, Mr Bowden’s, father granted the original tenancy. Mr Bowden was gifted the land in 1999. The parties are both farmers and are neighbours.
The brief facts of the case are as follow: Mr Smyth-Tyrrell approached the late Mr Bowden in 1993 to ask if he could let the land and property for 15 years. He has a particular interest in historic houses and he wrote to the late Mr Bowden saying he was interested in the possibilities of restoring the small house and barn to rent out, and, as such, would like to take a long lease of the property. He also said that at the end of the 15 years there was a chance that Mr Bowden and his family would find themselves with a renovated period house in a pleasant surrounding which someone else had paid for. The late Mr Bowden was agreeable to this proposition and an agreement was drawn up. Importantly, the agreement did not say that Mr Smyth-Tyrrell and his wife (the co-tenant) were required to restore the buildings and rent them out. And, the agreement was signed by the Smyth-Tyrrells but not by the late Mr Bowden.
The Smyth-Tyrrells started paying rent and after a few years started renovating the house. They undertook substantial works to it (and to the barn) and ultimately rented out the property. In 2008 the fifteen years came to an end but nothing changed on the ground. The Smyth-Tyrrells continued to pay their rent. In 2011 the rent was increased by the current Mr Bowden to £1,000 pa. In June 2014 Mr Bowden gave the Smyth-Tyrrells notice to quit and also gave notice that if the Smyth-Tyrrells were occupying the property under a business tenancy pursuant to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (the “1954 Act”) he intended to occupy the holding for the purposes of a business once they had vacated. In court Mr Bowden and his wife gave evidence that they intended to use the property as a holiday letting.
The Smyth-Tyrrells contested the notice to quit and started court proceedings. They made three claims: that they had an agricultural tenancy protected by the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986; that they were entitled to a new lease under the 1954 Act; they were entitled to an interest in the property by way of proprietary estoppel.
The case was heard last November in the High Court by HHJ Matthews. His judgment is very detailed and he sets out the law clearly so it is worth a read if you want to find out more about how he applied the law to the facts of this case. As an overarching point, on the question of the validity of the 15 year tenancy he concluded that because no one could produce a copy of the 1993 agreement that had been signed by the late Mr Bowden the lease could not qualify as a valid agreement at law for the grant of a 15 year tenancy because it did not meet the requirements for such a lease that are set out in section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989. As such, he held that the Smyth-Tyrrells had occupied from the beginning as periodic tenants.
As regards the three claims brought by the Smyth-Tyrrells HHJ Matthews held that they were not occupying the property for agricultural purposes and therefore did not have a protected tenancy under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986. They did not have a 1954 Act tenancy over the house at the property, and even if they did over the remainder of the property it was irrelevant because Mr and Mrs Bowden had made out a case for opposing a renewal of any business lease due to the fact that they intend to occupy the property for the purpose of their own business (running holiday lets). The estoppel argument, which was actually one of promissory estoppel, failed because the Judge did not find that any assurances had been given by either the late or the current Mr Bowden and, even if that had been the case, the Smyth-Tyrrells could not prove that they had suffered sufficient detriment in relying on those assurances. As such, all three claims failed.
We regularly advise on the types of issues that came up in this case, so please contact us if you have similar queries.
If you want to read more, you can access the judgment here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2018/106.html