[2006] EWHC1773 (Admin), 13 July 2006. Concerns whether the Agricultural Lands Tribunal was correct in refusing a succession tenancy. Application by T for an order directing A to state a case relating to its decision to refuse T a successor tenancy. T had applied for a yearly farm tenancy in succession to her deceased brother. T had failed to convince the tribunal pursuant to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 s36(3(a) that in the seven years prior to her brother's death her principal source of livelihood had derived from agricultural work on the holding and that she was eligible for a successor tenancy as a person who had satisfied that condition to a material extent pursuant to s41(1)(b) of the Act. The tribunal had applied "Littlewood v Rolfe" ( (1981) 2 All ER 51) to determine whether the work undertaken by T on the holding was substantial in terms of time and value. "Held": application refused. The requirement of s36(3)(a)of the 1986 Act that T's livelihood was derived from agricultural work on the holding for a continuous period, had not been satisfied to a material extant pursuant to s41(1)(b) of the Act. Overall the tribunal had faithfully followed "Littlewood".