Rachel Coyle secures victory in long-running agricultural tenancy dispute

May 8, 2026

Rachel Coyle from Exchange Chambers has secured a significant victory for her client following a long-running dispute concerning an agricultural holdings tenancy governed by the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986.

Rachel acted for the Claimant Local Authority in a two-day trial involving a possession claim and allegations of estoppel arising from the occupation of a farm holding.

The pleadings in the matter were drafted by Rachel in 2023, with the case subsequently adjourned several times before proceeding to trial.

The dispute concerned an agricultural tenancy held by Tenant X. The tenant’s former partner had previously been added to the tenancy by deed before later being removed following the breakdown of their relationship, leaving Tenant X as the sole tenant.

At or around that time, the Defendant entered into a relationship with Tenant X and moved onto the farm holding. However, she was never added to the tenancy.

Following the death of Tenant X, the Defendant, acting as Personal Representative of the estate, was served with a Case G Notice by the Local Authority. The notice referred to Tenant X having been the sole tenant.

The Local Authority maintained that communications concerning repairs to the holding were consistent with the obligations expected of a Personal Representative in circumstances where the tenancy has vested in the Personal Representative following the death of the tenant.

No application was made to the Tribunal within the requisite time period to succeed to the tenancy by the Defendant.

After the expiry of the Case G Notice, the Defendant remained in occupation of the holding and possession proceedings were issued.

The Defendant defended the claim on the basis of estoppel. She alleged that she had been promised a tenancy, or alternatively treated as a tenant, following the removal of the former partner from the tenancy and through subsequent communications concerning repairs to the holding.

It was also alleged that the Defendant had relied upon those assurances to her detriment, including carrying out repair works and taking responsibility for matters connected with the holding.

The Claimant’s case was that no clear or unequivocal assurance had ever been made that the Defendant would be granted a tenancy or treated as a tenant. The Local Authority contended that the repairs undertaken were either those expected of a Personal Representative consistent with the yielding up clauses in the tenancy agreement or works voluntarily carried out by the Defendant for reasons including livestock protection, storm damage and assisting Tenant X during his lifetime.

The learned judge agreed with the Claimant’s position.

The court found there had been no clear and unequivocal assurance or promise made to the Defendant and that her actions were not undertaken in reliance upon any such alleged assurance.

The judge also found that the Defendant’s own communications over time were inconsistent with her asserted belief that she had been promised a tenancy.

In any event, the court accepted that the Local Authority had been entitled to serve a notice to quit under the terms of the tenancy agreement, giving 12 months’ notice, even if the Defendant had been considered a tenant.

Rachel Coyle accepts instructions in all manner of property and land disputes, including agricultural tenancy matters and cases involving estoppel.