In my role as a county chair of the NFU I never cease to be amazed at the amount of law that is discussed at meetings whether local, regional and national.
It just goes to show how regulated the farming industry is and that not only does it have to cope with that regulation but also with the fact that much of the public has a view on how it should be managed. What other industry has public footpaths traversing the factory floor? Therefore I thought that this month it would be useful to have an update, with some background, on the legal matters that are in the headlines at the moment.
Tabular valuation.
Mr Partridge, a livestock farmer, with the NFU’s backing, challenged Defra’s use of a table in a statutory instrument that determined the level of compensation that he received when animals of his were identified as TB reactors and subsequently slaughtered. Compensation was paid out on the basis of average values determined by Defra. Mr Partridge had high value pedigree animals and lost out.
Mr Partridge was successful in the High Court with a ruling that Defra were acting unlawfully. Defra appealed that decision and were successful in the Court of Appeal with the judgement stating that once an animal was a TB reactor and slaughtered the fact that it was a pedigree did not mean that it had a higher value at that stage.
Leave was sought by Mr Partridge to appeal this to the House of Lords but leave was refused on 26th June.
FMD 2007
Fourteen farmers brought an action against the Institute for Animal Health, Merial Animal Health Ltd and Defra in respect of damages incurred as a result of the outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease in 2007. Seven of those farmers had livestock that were infected and an out of court settlement was reached earlier in the year. The remaining seven were indirectly affected and, it was contended, suffered significant financial loss. In February there was an application to have the cases struck out. Judgement was handed down at the end of March and in it the judge stated that these seven had no real prospect of success and that the actions would be dismissed. It is understood that this decision is not going to be appealed.
Pesticide spraying
Georgina Downs challenged Defra through the courts that it had failed to implement a European Directive that dealt with the protection of residents and bystanders from possible harm during crop spraying. It is important to note that it was Defra that was challenged not any farmer or group of farmers. Defra lost in the High Court but appealed and on 7th July the Court of Appeal ruled in Defra’s favour. The result is that an extra tier of regulation in an area that is already highly regulated was avoided.
It is recognised that there are some concerns from a few people and voluntary initiatives are in place and consideration is being given as to whether these could be extended. Defra have yet to give a formal response.
Livestock injuring walkers – McKaskie v Cameron
In early July a walker was successful in her action against a farmer whose cows (with calves) injured her as she crossed a public right of way. There is a general principle of occupier’s liability and a duty of care owned by any land owner to anybody on their land. Although there are some statutory restrictions such as those that relate to not placing bulls of certain dairy breeds over 10 months old in fields where there is public access, there is no general restriction. However, if a keeper’s stock injures someone there is a potential liability. Therefore keepers of animals must identify and manage any risk and, if necessary, take appropriate advice and precautions.
VAT on rent reviews
A provision has been inserted into the Finance Bill 2009 that has the effect that changes in VAT levels will not act as a trigger to the three year rent review cycle under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986. This will also apply when there is an apportionment between commercial and residential elements of farm rent.
And finally...
A new EU marketing regulation came into force on 1st July which means that 26 products that were subject to what to many seemed ridiculous constraints can now be properly marketed. Therefore cucumbers that are not straight, carrots that can cause chuckles and odd shaped aubergines can now be placed on supermarket shelves. However there are 10 products including apples peaches and pears where the old rules still apply.
For more information or advice on any of the issues raised, please contact
Paul Rice.
This article was written by
Paul Rice for publication by the UK 200 Group. July 2009.
