How can a farm diversification put your home at risk?

The case Axnoller Events Ltd v Brake and another; Brake and others v Chedington Court Estate Ltd [2021], is an important story for rural landowners to understand. It judged a number of claims, but notably for farmers, it set a new interpretation for what constitutes ‘agriculture’ in this age of diversification when applied to a worker seeking protected rights.

Mr Brake came from a long line of farmers and horse copers. He and his second wife bought West Axnoller Farm and developed a sizeable equestrian and farming business. The property included a respectable house and a farm cottage. The Brakes looked to diversify and entered a business partnership which included wedding events at the farm, but unfortunately the venture did not work out and they filed for bankruptcy. The farm was therefore sold in 2017 to a company that intended to expand the wedding business. Mr & Mrs Brake remained on the farm as employees and continued their equestrian enterprise. They lived in the house under license but in November 2018 they received notice to completely vacate the farm by November 2020.

Mr Brake claimed he had rights to stay in the house under the Housing Act 1988 as an assured agricultural occupant. He relied upon the provisions of Housing Act 1988, sections 24 and 25 and the statutory definitions of agriculture set down in section 1(1)(a) of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 .The judge, however, found that Mr Brake was in fact employed to run and support the wedding and events business operating on the land. This is despite his agricultural activities of fencing, hedging, making hay and silage. The judge said that these activities were merely maintaining the land for the ambience of a wedding venue and supporting an equestrian enterprise. As such, this was not ‘agricultural work’ per se and not considered commercial farming.

Following on, the court decided there was no qualifying arrangement for an agricultural worker to occupy the house because, as above, Mr Brake was not an agricultural worker. Since his dismissal, he had no service occupancy and given that he was there under revocable license only and had been served valid notice, he had no grounds to holdover. This is especially the case as his employer was not effectively the owner of the property but the operator of the wedding events business. Finally, the Brakes were forced to give up their farm after their plans to diversify failed.

A salient warning for rural businesses here is that farm diversification may lead to unintended consequences, especially when relying on statutory provisions that have not kept up with the changing nature of farming and the pursuit of diversified incomes.

Landowners can reduce the risk of occupiers later claiming security of tenure by using written revocable licence agreements with key terms and clauses that exclude protected rights to occupy. Where a residence is required for genuine employment reasons, a well-documented service occupation agreement is still a valuable safeguard.

For business premises, landlords may contract out sections 24-28 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 to reduce the risk of occupiers remaining after the term of the lease has expired. Clear written terms, careful drafting and early legal advice all help prevent ambiguity and protect property interests. As ever, members can contact the CLA Legal Team for further guidance.

Much is changing in the lettings and leases world with the Renters Rights Act coming into force on 1 May 2026 for residential properties and the Law Commission actively looking to overhaul the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 for business premises. Landlords would do well to review their current leasing strategies, get advice and ensure they continue to meet their objectives whilst remaining compliant.