Search Results for: Animal Health Act 1981 34

Click the case name for better results:

Acts

1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs v Feakins and Another: ChD 26 Nov 2004

The farmer complained that the department had, during the foot and mouth outbreak destroyed animals which did not belong to the owner of the land. The department said that the farmer had disposed of his land at an undervalue to defeat his creditors. Held: The department did not have power under the Act to bury … Continue reading Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs v Feakins and Another: ChD 26 Nov 2004

Feakins and Another v Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Civ 1513): CA 9 Dec 2005

The department complained that the defendants had entered into a transaction with their farm at an undervalue so as to defeat its claim for recovery of sums due. The transaction used the grant of a tenancy by the first chargee. Held: The farmers’ appeal as to the farm transaction failed: ‘beyond argument that DEFRA was … Continue reading Feakins and Another v Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Civ 1513): CA 9 Dec 2005

Dixon and Another, Regina (on the application of ) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: QBD 10 Apr 2002

The applicants were farmers. Their cattle were destroyed after contracting foot and mouth disease. Their land was used for the burning of the carcasses of their animals, and of animals from neighbouring farms. They were compensated inter alia for the use of their land for burning the carcasses of their neighbours, but not their own … Continue reading Dixon and Another, Regina (on the application of ) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: QBD 10 Apr 2002

Regina v Secretary of State for Education and Employment and others ex parte Williamson and others: HL 24 Feb 2005

The appellants were teachers in Christian schools who said that the blanket ban on corporal punishment interfered with their religious freedom. They saw moderate physical discipline as an essential part of educating children in a Christian manner. Held: The appeal was dismissed. For Article 9 to be engaged (aside from certain other threshold conditions) the … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for Education and Employment and others ex parte Williamson and others: HL 24 Feb 2005