Kirby & Ors v Baker & Metson Ltd

Kirby & Ors v Baker & Metson Ltd

The words 'an order approved by both Houses of Parliament' in Case B(b)(ii) require the use of the affirmative procedure, not the negative procedure. The Arbitrator was wrong in law to hold otherwise, and the appeal is allowed.

Parties
Claimant: John Sydney Kirby & Others; Defendant: Baker & Metson Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under S. 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 / Judgment on Appeal From Arbitral Award
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Statutory Provisions, Notices to Quit Agricultural Land, Parliamentary Procedures for Statutory Instruments
Land Law Agricultural Law Arbitration Interpretation of Statutory Provisions Notices to Quit Agricultural Land Parliamentary Procedures for Statutory Instruments

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Sydney Kirby & Others

Claimant

Baker & Metson Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under S. 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 / Judgment on Appeal From Arbitral Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the words 'an order approved by both Houses of Parliament' in Case B(b)(ii) of Schedule 3 to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 require the affirmative procedure or permit the negative procedure for statutory instruments

Ratio Decidendi

The words 'an order approved by both Houses of Parliament' in Case B(b)(ii) require the use of the affirmative procedure, not the negative procedure. The Arbitrator was wrong in law to hold otherwise, and the appeal is allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed. The parties are invited to agree the form of Order, with written submissions within 7 days if agreement is not possible.