Executors of Major Michael Thomas Noel Hamilton Wills v David Keith John Holder
Decision date: 23 October 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKUT 409 (LC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This appeal concerned whether income from an agricultural contracting business based at, but carried out on other farms, counted as livelihood "derived from his agricultural work on the holding" under s36(3)(a), and alternatively whether the applicant should be treated as eligible under s41. The Upper Tribunal found the First-tier Tribunal erred in law by focusing on where the business was administratively based rather than where the applicant actually did the agricultural work, and also gave inadequate reasons when rejecting the applicant's s41 argument; the FTT’s decision and direction in the applicant’s favour were set aside and the matter remitted to the original FTT panel for reconsideration.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: medium
The livelihood condition in s36(3)(a) must be assessed by reference to where the applicant undertakes his agricultural work and the proportion of his livelihood derived from that work, not merely by where a contracting business is based or administratively linked to the holding; where work is performed is the proper focus for determining qualifying livelihood.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
Comments indicate that factors linking a business to the holding (e.g. storage of machinery, fuel supply, administrative base) may be relevant background evidence but cannot substitute for an analysis of where the applicant’s qualifying agricultural activity is carried out; apportionment between qualifying and non-qualifying income is a factual judgment for the tribunal, with time spent being a permissible measure.