Agricultural divorces can be "notoriously difficult to resolve" (Wilson J in R v R  FLR 98). There is often a departure from equality in farming divorces due to the non-matrimonial nature of some farming assets. For example, a farm that has been gifted, inherited and/or in the family for generations, in the expectation that it will be handed down, is a factor that the court will take into consideration.
Whilst a distinction can be made between matrimonial and non-matrimonial assets, the needs of one or both parties will sway any settlement. However, needs are an elastic concept, and if needs can be satisfied without recourse to non-matrimonial farming assets, the yardstick of equality can be stretched and tested. Each case will turn on its facts, and the outcome will depend on a wide variety of different factors.
The landmark case of White v White  FLR 98 1 was itself a farming case. Martin and Pamela White both came from farming families and were married for over 30 years. They had three children together and lived their married life as dairy farmers. At the outset of their relationship, they each brought into the marriage a modest £2,000 and, shortly after their wedding, purchased a £32,000 farm in Somerset, known as Blagroves Farm. This consisted of 160 acres of land and a farmhouse. They purchased the farm using a mortgage and an £11,000 loan from Martin's father. Over the years, they purchased more land, which increased the size of the farm substantially. The parties also farmed Rexton Farm, consisting of over 300 acres, as part of their farming partnership. Rexton Farm was part of the Willett estate, which Martin's father purchased for an advantageous price in 1971. Later, Martin's father transferred that estate into the joint names of himself and his three sons, including Martin. In 1993, Martin purchased Rexton Farm, as his part of the Willett estate, subject to a mortgage of £137,000. This was purchased in Martin's sole name, and it was not treated as belonging to the farming partnership. Rexton Farm was valued at £1.78 million.
At trial, the total net assets were calculated at approximately £4.6 million. At first instance, the wife was awarded £980,000 on the basis that this is what she "reasonably required". This equated to approximately a fifth of the overall assets. The reasoning behind this was that she required a farmhouse with stabling and 25 acres, which, at the time, would cost around £425,000. She also needed £40,000 in periodical payments per annum, which was capitalised at £550,000. This would leave the husband with assets that exceeded his needs.
The wife successfully appealed the first instance decision, and she was awarded 43% of the assets. The key points taken from this case:
The outcome of White v White changed how all family lawyers approach a case, with reference to the starting point of equality. The main principle derived from this case is that equality should only be departed from if there is a very good reason for doing so and, there should be no bias in favour of the breadwinner.
Soon after White v White, reasons to depart from equality crept in. In N v N  2 FLR 69, another farming case, the court took the view that the theory of equality was impractical. For example, equality may cripple the family's finances to the ultimate detriment of the children. In N v N, the wife received around 40% of the matrimonial assets, but this was done over time because the husband's farming business needed to continue with little disruption to retain its value.
In the same year, in the non-farming case of S v S  2 FLR, there were grounds for departing from equality on the basis of the existence of the husband's second wife and family. It was held that having regard to all the s 25 factors, the award of £400,000 to the wife, required to achieve equality, would discriminate against the husband. On the facts, this award would mean that the wife lived in luxury, while for the husband with a new family to support, things would be much tighter. If an agreement was harder on one party than the other, then this was a good reason to depart from equality. The court should aim to provide both parties with a comfortable house and sufficient money to discharge their needs and obligations. On that basis, there was an order for the husband to transfer to the wife his half-share of the marital home and of the joint investments and to pay to her a lump sum of £300,000.
After S v S, the non-farming landmark case of Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane  1 FLR 1186 highlighted that the concept of sharing had replaced the concept of equality and confirmed that sharing was not the same as equality. The needs of the parties were the emphasis in this case, and the straightjacket of "needs" may not result in an equal division of all assets.
Cases of equal sharing in agricultural divorces have been rare. The reason for a departure from equality in farming cases is often justified due to the nature of farming assets. Put bluntly, the needs of the parties can perhaps be satisfied without dividing a farm in half.
Many farming cases settle on the basis of a wider family-based agreement, with the wider family agreeing to use family money to buy out one spouse to achieve a clean break. However, those cases that do not settle often end up in court due to thorny issues surrounding trusts, partnerships, companies, third party rights and inheritance issues.
Farms can be valued like any other asset. However, common problems that distinguish farming cases from non-farming cases are as follows:
Extracting value from a farm, whilst keeping the farm alive, is the crux of the problem in many agricultural divorces. In R v R  1 FLR 928, the issue for the court was "to contrive a raft of arrangements which enable the wife and the children to vacate the farmhouse…to move to other accommodation and to live there at a reasonable level without disabling the husband from also living at a reasonable level".
In R v R, the husband's farm had no means, either by immediate payment or by borrowing, to provide a lump sum for the wife. The farm company offered to buy the wife a house that the company would retain but in which she could live.
Mr Justice Wilson said it would be wrong for the wife to be beholden to her husband's family and leave the husband with assets, his shares in the family company, worth around £450,000. A lump sum by instalments could be paid overtime and could be used as security for raising a mortgage on her own house. Therefore, the husband was required to pay £30,000 immediately and £225,000 over 20 years (charged on the husband's shares in his business).
Leaving the EU has meant that the UK is no longer part of the EU Common Agricultural Policy, which has paid UK farmers £3.5 billion per annum. This has been a significant, if not the main, source of income for some farmers. These payments have been the difference between some farms making a profit or not in any given financial year. In 2018, DEFRA estimated that approximately 42% of farms would have outgoings exceeding their revenues without the benefit of these payments.
The Agricultural Act 2020, which came into force on 11th November 2020, provides Ministerial Powers to develop new farm support approaches in England. Newly introduced Environmental Land Management (ELM) Schemes will provide farmers with financial assistance for producing 'public goods', such as environmental or animal welfare improvements and 'public benefits', such as improved water and air quality or public access through farmland.
There is no mention of any direct subsidies or quotas within the new Act. Payments under the current scheme, which will be phased out over the next seven years, are based on the size of the farm and how much land is farmed. There will be a multi-annual financial assistance plan for at least the next five years, but there is no certainty on how payments will be made under this new scheme.
As such, it is very important that this 7-year phase-out period is factored into any valuation of a farm or farming business, for current cases in particular. For future cases over the next 1-5 years, details of the new payment scheme will hopefully be clarified and factored into any agricultural business valuation.
Because of the Brexit-induced shift in emphasis on environmental factors, the value of farmland may vary, as some farms will naturally find it easier to meet the environmental requirements. For example, land which was previously valued at the lower end of the market due to accessibility may now benefit from an increase in value if it is repurposed to benefit the environment in some way. For example, in restoring wildlife habitats, boosting wild species and woodland creation. Also, land with footpath access may now actually increase in value due to the financial incentives that attach to having such access.
Some farms diversify with farm shops, workshops, holiday lets, wedding venues or even commercial offices. The focus on environmental factors may mean that those farms need to change how they operate or balance their carbon footprint by benefiting the environment, as described above, to maximise the government subsidies they receive. That being said, some farms that have diversified are very lucrative already, so they may not feel the effects of the change as much as, say, a small crop farm. The value of the diversified business may itself outweigh any reduction in subsidies and the value of the land itself.
The diverse nature of farms highlights the importance of expert knowledge and valuations within farming divorces. As well as land and buildings, the farming business will need to be valued along with machinery, government subsidies and entitlements. The potential challenges brought about by Brexit may affect valuations, and it will be more important than ever to instruct a trusted Agricultural Surveyor and Consultant when dealing with an agricultural divorce.
Accurate and creative advice is needed at an early stage to ensure that money can be released to satisfy the financial needs of both parties. For example, it may be possible for only part of the farm to be sold, or there could be provision for capital payments over time. It is also possible for land to be transferred between spouse in satisfaction of their financial claims. If there are other assets that can be distributed to avoid a sale or part sale of a farm, that is also an option to be explored. Alternatively, or in addition, it may be possible to commence diversification of a business to aid a settlement.
Since the case of White, there are no widely reported farming divorces where an equal division of assets has been ordered. The reason for this may lie in the nature of the assets themselves, but it may also be because of the emphasis on "needs" brought about by Miller & McFarlane. Some may say that "needs" has become a polite alternative to "reasonable requirements", which the House of Lords attempted to move away from in White v White.
Whilst for non-farming divorces, an equal division of assets and wealth accumulated during the marriage is considered a fair outcome. The reality is often unachievable because of the desire and needs to preserve assets that were owned long before the marriage inherited by one party. However, fairness still requires financial needs to be met.
Agricultural divorces are in a field of their own. Our specialist family lawyers can use their experience to help you reach an amicable solution. If you have any more questions regarding agricultural divorce or if you would like further information on how we can help, please do not hesitate to contact a member of our Family Law Team on 0161 941 4000 or email the Family Law Team.