Act: Party; (Tenant and Appellant)

Alt: Sir Crispin Agnew, Q.C.; Anderson Strathern LLP (Respondents)

18 March 2009

[1] We are quite satisfied that the nub of the appellant's argument in this case is that from at least 1980 there was an obligation on the landlords to upgrade and modernise the cottage under dispute.

[2] In our opinion, however, for the reasons given by the Land Court in SLC/101/07 that contention cannot be upheld. The wording of section 5(2) of the 1991 Act is, we think, quite clear and, as pointed out by Sir Crispin, the construction placed on it by the Land Court is entirely consonant with the provisions of section 15 of the same Act and with the decision of the Lands Tribunal for Scotland in Spencer-Nairn v Inland Revenue Commissioners 1985 S.L.T. (Lands Tribunal) 46. It is, we think, also well supported by the text in Gill on Agricultural Holdings 3^rd Edition at paras 7.17 et seq.

[3] We should note for the record that, at one point in the debate, Mr Telford did suggest that he was offering to prove that at no time during the tenancy was the cottage in a "thorough state of repair" within the meaning of section 5(2)(a) of the 1991 Act. However, this is not at all clear from his original application and no such contention was advanced before the Land Court. In any event, bearing in mind the wording of the original lease and that the cottage was in fact occupied for ten years prior to 1980, as also that no complaint was made for a period in excess of 20 years, we do not consider that this argument would have been likely to succeed.

[4] In all the circumstances this appeal is refused.