Giordano v Commission: ECJ 20 Mar 2014

ECJ Opinion – Appeals – Fishing quotas – Emergency measures adopted by the Commission – Action for non-contractual liability of the European Union – compensable Damage – Damage and some real – Loss of opportunity as part of the compensable injury

Cruz Villallon AG
C-611/12, [2014] EUECJ C-611/12, [2014] EUECJ C-611/12
Bailii, Bailii

European, Agriculture

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.522648

Buono And Others v Commission: ECJ 20 Mar 2014

ECJ Opinion – Appeals – Fishing quotas – Emergency measures adopted by the Commission – Action for non-contractual liability of the European Union – Admissibility – legal persons to act for damages – Non-contractual liability for an unlawful act – Application of FIAMM and Others / Council and Commission by the Court – Liability for an unlawful act – compensable Damage – Loss of chance

Cruz Villalon AG
C-12/13, [2014] EUECJ C-12/13, [2014] EUECJ C-12/13
Bailii, Bailii

European, Agriculture

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.522644

Sices And Others v Agenzia Dogane Ufficio delle Dogane di Venezia: ECJ 13 Mar 2014

ECJ Agriculture – Regulation (EC) No 341/2007 – Article 6(4) – Tariff quotas – Garlic of Chinese origin – Import licences – Non-transferable nature of rights deriving from certain import licences – Circumvention – Abuse of rights

L. Bay Larsen, P
C-155/13, [2014] EUECJ C-155/13
Bailii

European, Agriculture

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.522494

Northern Ireland Department Of Agriculture And Rural Development v Commission: ECJ 6 Mar 2014

ECL Appeals – EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD – Expenditure excluded from European Union financing – Admissibility of an action for annulment – Situation of the appellant who is not directly affected by the decision at issue

J.L. da Cruz Vilaca R P
C-248/12, [2014] EUECJ C-248/12
Bailii

European, Agriculture

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.522491

A. M. Van Der Ham v College Van Gedeputeerde Staten Van Zuid-Holland: ECJ 27 Feb 2014

ECJ Judgment Of The Court – Common agricultural policy – Financing by the EAFRD – Support for rural development – Reduction or discontinuance of payments in the event of non-compliance with the rules on cross-compliance – Concept of intentional non-compliance

C-396/12, [2014] EUECJ C-396/12
Bailii

European, Agriculture

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.521815

Sanders Adour and Guyomarc’h Orthez v Directeur des services fiscaux des Pyrenees-Atlantiques: ECJ 11 Jun 1992

Community law, and in particular the machinery of the common agricultural policy laid down for the cereals sector in, inter alia, Regulation No 2727/75 on the common organization of the market in cereals, precludes a Member State from levying a charge on a limited number of agricultural products over a prolonged period where that charge is likely to encourage economic agents to alter the structure of their production or consumption. It is for the national court to determine whether the charge at issue in a dispute before it has had such effects.
A parafiscal charge imposed on a basic product constitutes a charge having equivalent effect to a customs duty prohibited by Article 12 of the Treaty, when the charge is definitively levied on the importation of certain products, whereas it is reimbursed where those products are manufactured on the national territory, or when the revenue from it is entirely used for the benefit of domestic products only, thereby fully offsetting the charge imposed on those products. If that revenue is allocated in part to those benefits, thus offsetting only partly the burden borne by domestic products, the charge in question constitutes discriminatory taxation prohibited by Article 95 of the Treaty.
The fact that a parafiscal charge imposed on a basic product is reimbursed on the manufacture of derived products within national territory, whilst it is levied definitively on the importation of those derived products, or the revenue from it is used for the benefit of domestic products only, thereby offsetting the charge imposed on those products, may constitute State aid incompatible with the common market if the conditions for the application of Article 92 are met; that assessment falls within the competence of the Commission in accordance with the procedure laid down for that purpose in Article 93 of the Treaty.

C-149/91, [1992] EUECJ C-149/91, [1992] ECR I-3899
Bailii
European
Cited by:
CitedBloomsbury International Ltd v Sea Fish Industry Authority and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs SC 15-Jun-2011
The 1995 Regulations imposed a levy on fish both caught and first landed in the UK and also on imported fish products. The claimants, importers challenged the validity of the latter charges, saying that they went beyond the power given by the 1981 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agriculture

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.160719

Geistbeck and Another v Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs Gmbh: ECJ 5 Jul 2012

ECJ Intellectual and industrial property – Community plant variety rights – Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 – ‘Farmer’s privilege’ – Concept of ‘reasonable compensation’ – Compensation for damage suffered – Infringement

A. Tizzano, P
[2012] EUECJ C-509/10, C-509/10
Bailii
Citing:
OpinionGeistbeck and Another v Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs Gmbh ECJ 29-Mar-2012
ECJ Opinion – Intellectual and industrial property – Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 – Community plant variety rights – Obligation to pay reasonable compensation to the holder of such a right and to compensate the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Intellectual Property, Agriculture

Updated: 28 November 2021; Ref: scu.520002

Swift and Another v Dairywise Farms Limited and others: CA 1 Feb 2001

The company lent money to farmers secured against their milk quotas. They had to petition for a winding up, and the liquidators requested authority to continue the milk loan repayment schemes. The milk quotas had been vested in the farmers, and the liquidators sought directions form the court as to protection of the milk quotas, which it had been decided, was property capable of being held in trust. The milk quotas were protected by means of tenancy agreements, but an attempt was made to forfeit, or surrender, certain tenancy agreements, which would defeat the arrangement protecting the liquidators. The judge made a ‘safe haven’ order to protect the quotas. That order was appealed.
Held: Under the agreements, the company could require the re-transfer of the milk quota to farmers who completed the loan repayments. If the borrower defaulted, the quota could be sold defeating the equity of redemption. Milk quota may be an ‘asset’ for the purposes of capital gains tax; or property for the purposes of the law of trusts. The safe haven order was properly made.

Lord Justice Chadwick, Lady Justice Hale And Sir Martin Nourse
[2001] EWCA Civ 145
Bailii
Insolvency Act 1986 112, Council Regulations (EEC) 856/84 and 857/84, Dairy Produce Quotas Regulations 1997
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedHarries v Barclays Bank Plc CA 16-Jul-1997
Milk quotas. . .
CitedWachauf v Bundesamt Fur Ernahrung und Forstwirtschaft ECJ 13-Jul-1989
ECJ 1. The term ‘holding’ in Article 12(d) of Council Regulation No 857/84 relating to the application of the additional levy on milk covers all the agricultural production units which are the subject of a lease, . .
CitedDeverges v Sandeman Clark and Co 1-Mar-1902
It is an incident of a mortgage of chattels and choses in action that the mortgagee has a power of sale exercisable if the defendant fails to pay the monies due on the day fixed for payment or where no day is fixed after a proper demand and notice . .

Cited by:
CitedUltraframe (UK) Ltd v Fielding and others ChD 27-Jul-2005
The parties had engaged in a bitter 95 day trial in which allegations of forgery, theft, false accounting, blackmail and arson. A company owning patents and other rights had become insolvent, and the real concern was the destination and ownership of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insolvency, Agriculture, Equity

Updated: 28 November 2021; Ref: scu.147419

Antonio Munoz Y Cia S A , Superior Fruticola S A v Frumar Limited, Redbridge Produce Marketing Limited: PatC 26 Mar 1999

European legislation which controlled the naming and use of patented grape varieties did not provide for actions directly between the owner of the mark and an infringer. The purpose of the legislation was consumer protection achieved in other ways.

Times 02-Apr-1999
EC Treaty
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal toAntonio Munoz Y Cia SA Superior Fruitcola SA v Frumar Limited Redbridge Produce Marketing Limited CA 16-Jun-1999
The claimant sought to enforce European agricultural quality standards against the defendant, who was selling grapes in breach of the European Directive.
Held: The defendants were in breach, but the Directive did not give the claimants a . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromAntonio Munoz Y Cia SA Superior Fruitcola SA v Frumar Limited Redbridge Produce Marketing Limited CA 16-Jun-1999
The claimant sought to enforce European agricultural quality standards against the defendant, who was selling grapes in breach of the European Directive.
Held: The defendants were in breach, but the Directive did not give the claimants a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Agriculture, Intellectual Property

Updated: 27 November 2021; Ref: scu.136047

Societa Cooperativa Madonna Dei Miracol v Regione Abruzzo: ECJ 7 Oct 2013

ECJ Request for a preliminary ruling – Common agricultural policy – Joint actions – Non-payment of financial aid by the Commission – Withdrawal by a Member State of its contribution – Question of fact – Internal situation – Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court – Description of the factual context – Insufficiency – Hypothetical question – Manifest inadmissibility

C-82/13, [2013] EUECJ C-82/13
Bailii

European, Agriculture

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.516580

Confederation Paysanne v Ministre De L’Alimentation, De L’Agriculture Et De La Peche: ECJ 3 Oct 2013

ECJ Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Single payment scheme – Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 – Calculation of payment entitlement – Setting the reference amount – Reference period – Article 40(1), (2) and (5) – Exceptional circumstances – Farmers under agri-environmental commitments according to Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 and Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 – Determination of the right to revalorisation of the reference amount – Principle of protection of legitimate expectations – Equal treatment between farmers)

C-298/12, [2013] EUECJ C-298/12
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92, Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999

European, Agriculture

Updated: 21 November 2021; Ref: scu.516342

Brown v Wilson: 1949

A subtenant’s lease is not protected under the Agricultural Holdings Act where the head lease is terminated by the landlord, but if the head tenant determines his own tenancy the sub-tenancy is protected and will be promoted in his stead: ‘the law will not allow a man, by an act done between him and another, to impair or destroy the rights which he has granted to a third party.’

Hilbery J
[1950] EG 45, (1949) 208 LT 144
Agricultural Holdings Act 1948, Law of Property Act 1925 139
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedPhipos v G and B Callegari 1910
(Obiter) The service of an upwards notice to quit on a head landlord by a head tenant had the same effect on a sub-tenancy as a surrender. . .

Cited by:
OverruledPennel v Payne and Another CA 13-Dec-1994
An upwards notice to quit given by the head tenant allows the Head Landlord also to determine the sub-tenancy. This is the case whether or not the subtenancy was granted within the terms of the headlease. . .
CitedBarrett and Others v Morgan CA 30-Jun-1998
An artificial surrender of a head lease with the sole intention of defeating a sub tenancy was not effective and the subtenant became head tenant in their stead. The collusion defeated the ruse. ‘It is unilateral notices to quit that destroy . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Agriculture

Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.182060

Evita-K Eood v Obzhalvane I Upravlenie: ECJ 18 Jul 2013

ECJ Directive 2006/112/EC – Common system of value added tax – Supply of goods – Concept – Right to deduct – Refusal – Actual performance of a taxable transaction – Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 – System for the identification and registration of bovine animals – Ear tags

R. Silva de Lapuerta P
C-78/12, [2013] EUECJ C-78/12
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000, Directive 2006/112/EC

European, VAT, Agriculture

Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.513410

Martini Spa v Ministero Delle Attivita Produttive: ECJ 18 Jul 2013

ECJ Agriculture – System of import licences – Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000 – Article 35(4)(c) – Securities lodged at the time of application for the issue of the licences – Import licence – Late submission of proof of its use – Penalty – Calculation of the amount forfeited – Regulation (EC) No 958/2003 – Tariff quotas

J Malenovsky, P
C-211/12, [2013] EUECJ C-211/12
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000 35(4)(c), Regulation (EC) No 958/2003

European, Agriculture

Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.513413

Eurofit Sa v Bureau D’Intervention et de Restitution Belge: ECJ 18 Jul 2013

ECJ Request for a preliminary ruling – Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 – Export refunds – Misappropriation of goods intended for export – Exporter’s obligation to reimburse refunds – Failure of the competent authorities to provide information regarding the reliability of a contractor who is suspected of fraud – Force majeure – Absence

M. Berger, P
C-99/12, [2013] EUECJ C-99/12
Bailii

European, Agriculture

Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.513407

Abad Perez and Ors v Council and Commission (Agriculture): ECFI 13 Dec 2006

Common agricultural policy – Animal health – Bovine spongiform encephalopathy – Legislation relating to protection of animal health and public health – Action for damages – Non-contractual liability – Causal link – Formal defects – Association of traders – Inadmissibility

T-304/01, [2006] EUECJ T-304/01
Bailii
European

Agriculture

Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.247353

Et Agrokonsulting-04-Velko Stoyanov v Izpalnitelen Direktor Na Darzhaven Fond (Zemedelie) – Razplashtatelna Agentsia: ECJ 27 Jun 2013

ECJ Agriculture – Procedural autonomy of the Member States – Common agricultural policy – Aid – Administrative law disputes – Determination of the court with jurisdiction – National criterion – Administrative court in whose judicial district the seat of the authority which adopted the contested act is located – Principle of equivalence – Principle of effectiveness – Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

M Ilesic P
C-93/12, [2013] EUECJ C-93/12
Bailii

European, Agriculture

Updated: 14 November 2021; Ref: scu.511323

Xeda International Sa v European Commission: ECJ 27 Jun 2013

ECJ Appeal – Plant-protection products – Diphenylamine – Non-inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC – Procedure for the assessment of active substances – Withdrawal by notifier of support for inclusion of an active substance in that annex – Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 and Regulation (EC) No 1095/2007

Jarasiunas P
C-149/12, [2013] EUECJ C-149/12
Bailii
Directive 91/414/EEC, Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002, Regulation (EC) No 1095/2007

European, Agriculture

Updated: 14 November 2021; Ref: scu.511331

Syndicat Op 84 v Etablissement National Des Produits De L’Agriculture Et De La Mer (Franceagrimer): ECJ 13 Jun 2013

ECJ Agriculture – European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund – ‘Scrutiny period’ – Possibility for a Member State to extend the scrutiny period where it is impossible to carry out that scrutiny in the time allowed – Repayment of financial assistance – Penalties

C-3/12, [2013] EUECJ C-3/12
Bailii

European, Agriculture

Updated: 14 November 2021; Ref: scu.511015

Etablissement National Des Produits De L’Agriculture Et De La Mer v Societe Anonyme D’Interet Collectif Agricole Unanimes: ECJ 13 Jun 2013

ECJ Agriculture – European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund – ‘Period under scrutiny’ – Possibility of extending the period under scrutiny and adjusting the temporal parameters – Objective of effective supervision- Legal certainty

C-671/11, [2013] EUECJ C-671/11
Bailii

European, Agriculture

Updated: 14 November 2021; Ref: scu.511001

T and L Sugars Ltd v European Commission: ECFI 6 Jun 2013

ECFI Agriculture – Exceptional measures concerning the release of out-of-quota sugar on the Union market and opening a tariff quota – Action for annulment – Regulatory act entailing implementing measures – Lack of individual concern – Inadmissibility – Action for damages

[2013] EUECJ T-279/11
Bailii
European

Agriculture

Updated: 12 November 2021; Ref: scu.510334

Associazione Nazionale Degli Industriali Delle Conserve Alimentari Vegetali (Anicav) v European Commission: ECJ 30 May 2013

ECJ Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Aid in the fruit and vegetable sector – Actions for annulment – Whether directly concerned – Admissibility – Processed fruit and vegetables – Operational funds and operational programmes – Funding of ‘[non-]genuine processing activities

T-454/10, [2013] EUECJ T-454/10
Bailii
European

Agriculture

Updated: 12 November 2021; Ref: scu.510303

Herbert Schaible v Land Baden-Wurttemberg: ECJ 29 May 2013

ECJ (Opinion) Agriculture – Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 – Identification and registration of ovine and caprine animals – Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Article 20 of the Charter – Proportionality – Equality

Wahl AG
C-101/12, [2013] EUECJ C-101/12, [2013] EUECJ C-101/12
Bailii, Bailii

European, Agriculture

Updated: 12 November 2021; Ref: scu.510314

Sovio Wines Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v Perkins, Food Standards Agency: Admn 2 Mar 2009

The company complained that its products had been made subject to a movement control notice by the respondent. The product was derived from grapes, but had been subjected to a non-recognised process to reduce the alcohol content.
Held: Despite the non-approval of the process, it was still correct to test it according the standards. It did not meet the specifications for wine, and the notice was correct.

Dobbs J
[2009] EWHC 382 (Admin), Times 09-Apr-2009
Bailii
Common Agricultural Policy (Wine) (England and Northern Ireland) Regulations 2001
England and Wales

Agriculture, European

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.316594

Feakins v The Scottish Ministers: ECJ 19 Jun 2014

ECJ Advocate General’s Opinion – Common agricultural policy – Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 – Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 – Single payment – Hardship case rule – National reserve – Cumulation of entitlements

Kokott AG
C-335/13, [2014] EUECJ C-335/13 – O, [2014] EUECJ C-335/13
Bailii, Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, Regulation (EC) No 795/2004
European

Land, Agriculture

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.527239

Regina v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ex parte Quark Fishing Limited: HL 13 Oct 2005

The applicant had previously received licences to fish for Patagonian Toothfish off South Georgia. The defendant had instructed the issuer of the licence in such a way that it was not renewed. It now had to establish that its article 1 rights had been infringed in order to claim damages.
Held: The appeal succeeded, and the claim for damages failed. ‘South Georgia is a territory for whose international relations the United Kingdom is responsible. In respect of South Georgia the United Kingdom has made a declaration in respect of the Convention. It has not made a similar declaration in respect of the first Protocol.’ The Human Rights Act confirmed the obligations of the UK to those under its jurisdiction, it did not extend those responsibilities to others. If no claim can be made in Strasbourg, it follows that there cannot have been an infringement of a Convention right giving rise to a claim under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Baroness Hale of Richmond
Times 17-Oct-2005, [2005] 3 WLR 837, [2005] UKHL 57, [2005] HRLR 41, [2006] UKHRR 535, [2006] 1 AC 529, [2006] 3 All ER 111, [2006] Eu LR 424
House of Lords, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 81, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands Order 1985 (SI 1985/449), British Overseas Territories Act 2002
England and Wales
Citing:
At First InstanceQuark Fishing Ltd, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Admn 22-Jul-2003
The respondent had failed to renew the claimant’s license to fish in the South Atlantic for Patagonian Toothfish. The refusal had been found to be unlawful. The claimant now sought damages.
Held: English law does not generally provide a remedy . .
Appeal fromQuark Fishing Ltd, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs CA 29-Apr-2004
The claimant sought damages for having had its licence to catch Patagonian toothfish off South Georgia revoked, saying that it had infringed its property rights under the Convention.
Held: Though the Convention rights had been extended to . .
CitedIn re Bateman’s Trust 1873
The queen is the queen of New South Wales. . .
CitedRegina v The Secretary of State for The Home Department, ex parte Bhurosah CA 1968
In Mauritius the Queen is the Queen of Mauritius and the issuing of passports by the Government of Mauritius, although a matter of foreign affairs and therefore under the control of the UK Government, was an act carried out in the name of the Queen . .
CitedX v Belgium ECHR 1961
The Commission considered claims by long standing residents of the Belgian Congo who suffered as a result of upheavals on independence. One claim was based upon exclusion, albeit of Belgian nationals, from participation in the elections held in . .
CitedThe Queen in Right of Alberta v Canadian Transport Commission 1977
The Crown in right of Alberta may be equated with the Government of Alberta. . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Another, ex parte Bancoult Admn 3-Nov-2000
The applicant sought judicial review of an ordinance made by the commissioner for the British Indian Ocean Territory. An issue was raised whether the High Court in London had jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings and grant relief.
Held: . .
CitedGillow v The United Kingdom ECHR 24-Nov-1986
The housing authority in Guernsey refused to allow the applicants to occupy the house they owned there.
Held: The house in question was the applicants’ home because, although they had been absent from Guernsey for many years, they had not . .
CitedRegina v The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte Indian Association of Alberta CA 1982
The court considered an application leave to request a judicial review seeking a declaration that treaty obligations entered into by the Crown to the Indian peoples of Canada were still owed by Her Majesty in right of Her government in the UK.
CitedTito v Waddell (No 2); Tito v Attorney General ChD 1977
Equity applies its doctrines to the substance, not the form, of transactions. In respect of the rule against self dealing for trustees ‘But of course equity looks beneath the surface, and applies its doctrines to cases where, although in form a . .
CitedBui van Thanh v United Kingdom ECHR 12-Mar-1990
The applicant, one of the ‘Vietnamese Boat People’, complained of the acts of government official in Hong Kong.
Held: The UK government had not extended the Convention to Hong Kong and the application failed. . .
CitedX v Belgium ECHR 1961
The Commission considered claims by long standing residents of the Belgian Congo who suffered as a result of upheavals on independence. One claim was based upon exclusion, albeit of Belgian nationals, from participation in the elections held in . .
CitedIn re McKerr (Northern Ireland) HL 11-Mar-2004
The deceased had been shot by soldiers of the British Army whilst in a car in Northern Ireland. The car was alleged to have ‘run’ a checkpoint. The claimants said the investigation, now 20 years ago, had been inadequate. The claim was brought under . .
CitedBui van Thanh v United Kingdom ECHR 12-Mar-1990
The applicant, one of the ‘Vietnamese Boat People’, complained of the acts of government official in Hong Kong.
Held: The UK government had not extended the Convention to Hong Kong and the application failed. . .
CitedParochial Church Council of the Parish of Aston Cantlow and Wilmcote with Billesley, Warwickshire v Wallbank and another HL 26-Jun-2003
Parish Councils are Hybrid Public Authorities
The owners of glebe land were called upon as lay rectors to contribute to the cost of repairs to the local church. They argued that the claim was unlawful by section 6 of the 1998 Act as an act by a public authority incompatible with a Convention . .
CitedDrozd and Janousek v France and Spain ECHR 26-Jun-1992
The applicants complained of the unfairness of their trial in Andorra (which the Court held it had no jurisdiction to investigate) and of their detention in France, which was not found to violate article 5.
Held: Member states are obliged to . .

Cited by:
CitedRegina (on the Application of Mazin Mumaa Galteh Al-Skeini and Others) v The Secretary of State for Defence CA 21-Dec-2005
The claimants were dependants of Iraqi nationals killed in Iraq.
Held: The Military Police were operating when Britain was an occupying power. The question in each case was whether the Human Rights Act applied to the acts of the defendant. The . .
CitedAli v Head Teacher and Governors of Lord Grey School HL 22-Mar-2006
The claimant had been accused with others of arson to school property. He was suspended for the maximum forty five day period. The school then invited the family to discuss arrangements to return to the school, but the family did not attend. After . .
CitedAl-Jedda v Secretary of State for Defence CA 29-Mar-2006
The applicant had dual Iraqi and British nationality. He was detained by British Forces in Iraq under suspicion of terrorism, and interned.
Held: His appeal failed. The UN resolution took priority over the European Convention on Human Rights . .
CitedBancoult, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) Admn 11-May-2006
The claimant on behalf of himself and other islanders sought a declaration that the 2004 Order was unlawful. The islands had been emptied of people in 1973 and before in order to allow use of the islands as military bases. He had enjoyed a right to . .
CitedBancoult, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) HL 22-Oct-2008
The claimants challenged the 2004 Order which prevented their return to their homes on the Chagos Islands. The islanders had been taken off the island to leave it for use as a US airbase. In 2004, the island was no longer needed, and payment had . .
CitedHM Treasury v Ahmed and Others SC 27-Jan-2010
The claimants objected to orders made freezing their assets under the 2006 Order, after being included in the Consolidated List of suspected members of terrorist organisations.
Held: The orders could not stand. Such orders were made by the . .
CitedMcCaughey and Another, Re Application forJudicial Review SC 18-May-2011
The claimants sought a fuller inquest into deaths at the hands of the British Army in 1990 in Northern Ireland. On opening the inquest, the coroner had declined to undertake to hold a hearing compliant with article 2, and it had not made progress. . .
CitedBarclay and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Others SC 22-Oct-2014
Constitutional Status of Chanel Islands considered
The Court was asked as to the role, if any, of the courts of England and Wales (including the Supreme Court) in the legislative process of one of the Channel Islands. It raised fundamental questions about the constitutional relationship between the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Agriculture, Constitutional

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.231108

Lauku Atbalsta Dienests (Aides Au Demarrage D’Entreprises Agricoles) (Common Agricultural Policy – Business Start-Up Aid for Young Farmers – Aid for The Development of Small Farms): ECJ 3 Jun 2021

Common agricultural policy (CAP) – Support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) – Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 – Article 19(1)(a) – Business start-up aid – Aid for the development of small farms – Aid for young farmers – Successive applications for both types of aid – Permissibility – Conditions

C-119/20, [2021] EUECJ C-119/20_O
Bailii
European
Cited by:
OpinionLauku Atbalsta Dienests (Aides Au Demarrage D’Entreprises Agricoles) (Common Agricultural Policy – Business Start-Up Aid for Young Farmers – Aid for The Development of Small Farms) ECJ 6-Oct-2021
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Common agricultural policy – European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) funding – National Rural Development Programme 2014-2020 – Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 – Article 19(1)(a) – Business start-up . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agriculture

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.668506

South Wales Sea Fisheries Committee v National Assembly for Wales: Admn 21 Dec 2001

The committee sought a review of the 2001 Order made under the 1966 Act to revise the contributions to be made by participating members of the committee to the costs of its administration. They contended that the only power over its costs was to order for the employment of fishery officers. By fixing the amounts payable it removed from the Committee its discretion as to how much to collect.
Held: There was no power to impose an obligation on the member councils to pay a contribution, and that was one basis of the order, which had therefore been made under a mistake of law. The court’s discretion should be exercised to overrule the order.

The Honourable Mr Justice Richards
[2001] EWHC Admin 1162
Bailii
South Wales Sea Fisheries (Variation) Order 2001, Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966, Local Government Reorganisation (Wales) (Committees for Sea Fisheries Districts) (Amendment) Order 1996, South Wales Sea Fisheries (Levies) Regulations 2001
Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Mayor of Plymouth 1896
Legislation was the only power that constituent councils had of controlling the expenditure of a fisheries committee, but any restrictions and conditions as to expenditure in connection with the appointment of a fishery officers had to be imposed . .
CitedRegina v North Riding of Yorkshire County Council 1989
The constituent councils, not having exercised the power to impose restrictions and conditions in advance, could not decline responsibility for items of expenditure necessarily incurred by the committee. Restrictions or conditions had to be imposed . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Administrative, Agriculture, Local Government, Wales

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.168017

Regina v Dairy Produce Quota Tribunal for England and Wales, Ex parte Caswell: HL 17 May 1990

The House sought to reconcile section 31 of the 1981 Act, with RSC Order 53 r4 as to the time within which judicial review proceedings must be brought.
Held: Whenever there was a failure to act promptly or within three months there was ‘undue delay’ within the meaning of section 31(6).
Lord Goff said: ‘as I read rule 4(1), the effect of the rule is to limit the time within which an application for leave to apply for judicial review may be made in accordance with its terms, i.e. promptly and in any event within three months. The court has however power to grant leave to apply despite the fact that an application is late, if it considers that there is good reason to exercise that power; this it does by extending the period. This, as I understand it, is the reasoning upon which the Court of Appeal reached its conclusion in Reg. v. Stratford-on-Avon District Council, Ex parte Jackson . Furthermore, the combined effect of section 31(7) and of rule 4(1) is that there is undue delay for the purposes of section 31(6) whenever the application for leave to apply is not made promptly and in any event within three months from the relevant date. It follows that, when an application for leave to apply is not made promptly and in any event within three months, the court may refuse leave on the ground of delay unless it considers that there is good reason for extending the period; but, even if it considers that there is such good reason, it may still refuse leave (or, where leave has been granted, substantive relief) if in its opinion the granting of the relief sought would be likely to cause hardship or prejudice (as specified in section 31(6)) or would be detrimental to good administration. I imagine that, on an ex parte application for leave to apply before a single judge, the question most likely to be considered by him, if there has been such delay, is whether there is good reason for extending the period under rule 4(1). Questions of hardship or prejudice, or detriment, under section 31(6) are, I imagine, unlikely to arise on an ex parte application, when the necessary material would in all probability not be available to the judge. Such questions could arise on a contested application for leave to apply, as indeed they did in Reg. v. Stratford-on-Avon District Council, Ex parte Jackson ; but even then, as in that case, it may be thought better to grant leave where there is considered to be good reason to extend the period under rule 4(1), leaving questions arising under section 31(6) to be explored in depth on the hearing of the substantive application. In this way, I believe, sensible effect can be given to these two provisions, without doing violence to the language of either. Unlike the Court of Appeal, I do not consider that rule 4(3) and section 31(7) lead to a circulus inextricabilis, because 31(6) does not limit ‘the time within which an application for judicial review may be made’ (the words used in rule 4(3)). Section 31(6) simply contains particular grounds for refusing leave or substantive relief, not referred to in rule 4(1), to which the court is bound to give effect, independently of any rule of court.’

Lord Goff
[1990] 2 WLR 1320, [1990] 2 AC 738, [1990] UKHL 5, [1990] 2 All ER 434
Bailii
Supreme Court Act 1981 31
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedRegina v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board Ex Parte A HL 11-Mar-1999
A police doctor’s statement in a contemporary medical report that her findings were consistent with the claimant’s allegation had not been included in the evidence before the CICB when it rejected her claim for compensation.
Held: The decision . .
CitedQuintavalle and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority Admn 9-Dec-2008
The claimants wished to challenge licensing decisions made by the respondent, and for a protective costs order. . .
CitedAdamson and Others v Paddico (267) Ltd SC 5-Feb-2014
Land had been registered as a town or village green but wrongly so. The claimant had sought rectification, but the respondents argued that the long time elapsed after registration should defeat the request.
Held: The appeal were solely as to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Agriculture

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.216415

D Pride and Partners (A Firm) and Others v Institute for Animal Health and Others: QBD 31 Mar 2009

The claimants sought damages after the loss of business when the defendants’ premises were the source of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease. The organism had escaped from their premises via a broken drain.
Held: Much of the damage claimed was for economic loss. The number of people who would be brought within the scope of the duty of care asserted by the claimanst was too numerous. The claimants had no real prospect of succeeding, and the claim was struck out.

Tugendhat J
[2009] EWHC 685 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedMorrison Steamship Co Ltd v Greystoke Castle (Cargo Owners) HL 1946
A ship was damaged in a collision. Though their goods were not damaged, the owners of cargo on the first ship became liable to the owners of the ship for a general average contribution. The owners sued the other ship owners for their negligence. The . .
CitedWeller v Foot and Mouth Disease Research Institute 1966
The plaintiff auctioneers sought damages in negligence from the defendants in having failed to prevent an outbreak of foot and mouth disease which led to damage to their business.
Held: Widgery J said: ‘Mr. Eveleigh says that, since the . .
CitedMurphy v Brentwood District Council HL 26-Jul-1990
Anns v Merton Overruled
The claimant appellant was a house owner. He had bought the house from its builders. Those builders had employed civil engineers to design the foundations. That design was negligent. They had submitted the plans to the defendant Council for approval . .
CitedJohnston v NEI International Combustion Ltd; Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd; similar HL 17-Oct-2007
The claimant sought damages for the development of neural plaques, having been exposed to asbestos while working for the defendant. The presence of such plaques were symptomless, and would not themselves cause other asbestos related disease, but . .
CitedSutradhar v Natural Environment Research Council HL 5-Jul-2006
Preliminary Report of Risk – No Duty of Care
The claimant sought damages after suffering injury after the creation of water supplies which were polluted with arsenic. He said that a report had identified the risks. The defendant said that the report was preliminary only and could not found a . .
CitedThree Rivers District Council and Others v Governor and Company of The Bank of England (No 3) HL 22-Mar-2001
Misfeasance in Public Office – Recklessness
The bank sought to strike out the claim alleging misfeasance in public office in having failed to regulate the failed bank, BCCI.
Held: Misfeasance in public office might occur not only when a company officer acted to injure a party, but also . .
CitedSwain v Hillman CA 21-Oct-1999
Strike out – Realistic Not Fanciful Chance Needed
The proper test for whether an action should be struck out under the new Rules was whether it had a realistic as opposed to a fanciful prospect of success. There was no justification for further attempts to explain the meaning of what are clear . .
CitedRylands v Fletcher HL 1868
The defendant had constructed a reservoir to supply water to his mill. Water escaped into nearby disused mineshafts, and in turn flooded the plaintiff’s mine. The defendant appealed a finding that he was liable in damages.
Held: The defendant . .
CitedMuirhead v Industrial Tank Specialities Ltd CA 31-Jul-1985
The plaintiff reared lobsters in tanks into which seawater was pumped for the purpose of oxygenation. The whole purpose of the pumps was to preserve the health of the lobsters. Due to the negligence of the third defendant, the pumps cut out and the . .
CitedF and H Contractors v Commercial Union CA 18-May-1993
Contractors had spread fertiliser unevenly on a field preparatory to the planting of a crop of potatoes. The result was ‘striping’, some potatoes showing signs of nutrient deficiency, whilst the remainder grew too quickly, resulting in an overall . .
CitedLandcatch Ltd v The Braer Corporation and Others OHCS 6-Mar-1998
The pursuers reared salmon eggs to the age of two years (smolt), before then selling them on. The defenders caused an oil spill, and the area was designated as an exclusion zone preventing the pursuers continuing their trade and could not sell their . .
CitedLandcatch Limited v The Braer Corporation and Williams and Jones and Hudner and Assurance Foreningen Skuld and the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund IHCS 19-May-1999
The pursuers raised freshwater salmon (smolt) to the age of two before selling them on. An oil spill prevented them trading. They appealed a refusal of damages on the baiss that this was pure relational economic loss.
Held: The appeal failed. . .
CitedCaltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd v Dredge ‘Willemstad’ 9-Dec-1976
Austlii (High Court of Australia) Negligence – Duty of care – Foreseeability of harm – Economic loss not consequential upon damage to person or property – Damage to property of one person – Economic loss suffered . .
CitedCandlewood Navigation Corporation Limited v Mitsui OSK Lines Limited and Matsuoka Steamship Co Limited PC 1-Jul-1985
(New South Wales) Two ships had collided, after, without negligence, an anchor on one ship failed. The Supreme Court had found the crew negligent after failing to react appropriately to the loss of the anchor. The company now appealed against the . .
CitedLojinska Plovidba v Transco Overseas Ltd (The Orjula) 1995
A layer of hydrochloric acid had leaked on to the deck of a ship. The port authorities required the vessel to be decontaminated of the acid before she could sail. The defendants applied to have the claim struck out.
Held: Mance J considered . .
CitedPerre v Apand Pty Ltd 12-Aug-1999
(High Court of Australia) The plaintiff farmers sought damages for financial losses incurred after the defendant negligently introduced a disease. Although the disease was not shown to have spread, neighbouring farm owners suffered economic loss by . .
CitedSpartan Steel and Alloys Ltd v Martin and Co (Contractors) Ltd. CA 22-Jun-1972
Damage was negligently inflicted by the defendants on the power line which they knew to be the direct electricity supply to the plaintiff’s factory.
Held: Damages were recovered for depreciation in value of one spoiled melt, plus consequential . .
CitedJan De Nul (Uk) Limited v NV Royale Belge CA 10-Oct-2001
The contractor undertook to dredge a stretch of river. Due to its failure to investigate properly, the result was the release of substantial volumes of silt into the estuary, to the damage of other river users and frontagers. The act amounted to a . .
CitedTransco Plc v United Utilities Water Plc QBD 25-Oct-2005
The defendant’s employee closed off a valve, cutting off the gas supply to the claimant’s customers. The claimant incurred costs investigating and restoring the gas supply.
Held: The tort of wrongful interference with goods was made out. . .
CitedSCM (United Kingdom) Ltd v W J Whittall and Son Ltd CA 1970
The defendants’ workmen damaged an electric cable belonging to the electricity board, cutting off several factories, including the plaintiff’s. The defendant sought to have the claim struck out.
Held: The part of the claim arising from . .
CitedCattle v The Stockton Waterworks 1875
The owner of land had contracted with the plaintiff for him to build a tunnel under a road, along which there was a defective water pipe. The pipe leaked, and when the contractor started to dig, the water that had accumulated under the road flowed . .
CitedDonoghue (or M’Alister) v Stevenson HL 26-May-1932
Decomposed Snail in Ginger Beer Bottle – Liability
The appellant drank from a bottle of ginger beer manufactured by the defendant. She suffered injury when she found a half decomposed snail in the liquid. The glass was opaque and the snail could not be seen. The drink had been bought for her by a . .
CitedBritish Celanese Ltd v A H Hunt (Capacitors) Ltd QBD 1969
Metal foil had been blown from the defendant’s factory premises on to an electricity sub-station, which in turn brought the plaintiff’s machines to a halt.
Held: The meaning Lawton J would give to the phrase ‘direct victim’ was a person whose . .
CitedR J Tilbury and Sons (Devon) Ltd t/A East Devon Shellfish v Alegrete Shipping Co Inc (Owners of the Ship ‘Sea Empress’), Assurance Foreningen Skuld (Gjensidig) and the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund 1971 CA 7-Feb-2003
The applicants had a business processing whelks. After the loss of the Sea Empress, an order was made prohibiting the sale of seafood from the area. They appealed a refusal of compensation for their losses. The respondents would be liable to make . .
CitedMarc Rich and Co Ag and Others v Bishop Rock Marine Co Ltd and Others HL 6-Jul-1995
A surveyor acting on behalf of the classification society had recommended that after repairs specified by him had been carried out a vessel, the Nicholas H, should be allowed to proceed. It was lost at sea.
Held: The marine classification . .
CitedLeigh and Sillavan Ltd v Aliakmon Shipping Co Ltd (The Aliakmon) HL 24-Apr-1985
The plaintiff contracted to buy a cargo to be shipped on the defendant’s vessel. Because of poor stowage, the cargo was damaged. At the time of the damage the claimant was neither the owner nor possessor of the cargo, but under the terms of the . .
CitedSouth Australia Asset Management Corporation v York Montague Ltd etc HL 24-Jun-1996
Limits of Damages for Negligent Valuations
Damages for negligent valuations are limited to the foreseeable consequences of advice, and do not include losses arising from a general fall in values. Valuation is seldom an exact science, and within a band of figures valuers may differ without . .
CitedLyons Son and Co v Gulliver CA 1914
The defendants operated the Palladium theatre. People wanting to attend queued either along the footpath or along the roadway itself in front of the premises from which the plaintiff neighbour carried on its business as lace merchants and wholesale . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agriculture, Torts – Other, Damages, Negligence

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.328004

Barrett and others v Morgan: HL 27 Jan 2000

The landlord served a notice to quit on the head tenant under an understanding that the head tenant would not serve a counter notice. The effect was to determine the head and sub-tenancy. It acted as a notice to quit, and despite the consensual nature of the deal, it was not in law a surrender. Sub-tenants had no protection in such situations. The lacuna was recognised, but parliament had done nothing to provide any such protection. ‘I reject the proposition that the service of a notice to quit by either party by pre-arrangement with the other is ‘a consensual transaction which is tantamount to a surrender’ since unlike a surrender it does not need the consent of the recipient to be effective. The proposition that such a transaction is incapable of determining a sub-tenancy is not tenable and does not gain by the substitution of the pejorative word ‘collusive’ for the word ‘consensual’. ‘

Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Woolf Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Millett
Times 28-Jan-2000, Gazette 10-Feb-2000, [2000] 2 WLR 285, [2000] UKHL 1, [2000] 2 AC 264, [2000] 1 All ER 481
House of Lords, Bailii
Agricultural Holdings Act 1986
England and Wales
Citing:
ApprovedPennell v Payne CA 1995
The operation of the break clause in a lease will (in the absence of provision to the contrary) have the effect of terminating not just the lease but also the underlease, and any inferior sub-tenancies. . .
Appeal fromBarrett and Others v Morgan CA 30-Jun-1998
An artificial surrender of a head lease with the sole intention of defeating a sub tenancy was not effective and the subtenant became head tenant in their stead. The collusion defeated the ruse. ‘It is unilateral notices to quit that destroy . .
CitedWebb v Russell 1789
The extinguishment of a tenancy by surrender extinguishes also the reversion to any sub-tenancy, so that the remedy for the rent and the covenants attached to the reversion cease with the reversion to which they were annexed. The sub-tenant held the . .
CitedBaron Sherwood v Moody 1952
A head landlord can even by his own unilateral act in serving notice to quit on the head tenant bring a sub-tenancy to an end if the head tenant fails to serve a counter-notice under the Agricultural Holdings Acts. . .
CitedNewlon Housing Trust v Alsulaimen and Another HL 29-Jul-1998
A tenancy which had been terminated by a notice given by one of the joint tenants had expired. It did not come to an end by any deed, and so was not capable of being set aside by a family court in the course of divorce proceedings. The possession . .
CitedRye v Rye HL 1962
Two brothers were in partneship in unequal shares, but acquired a property for use by the business which they held in equal shares. They agreed a parol yearly tenancy between themselves as owners and as partners. After one died his son took over his . .
CitedDoe d Beadon v Pyke 1816
it was argued that a surrender of a lease would annihilate all interests derived under the lease.
Held: The argument failed. It was ‘clear law, that though a surrender operates between the parties as an extinguishment of the interest which is . .
CitedMellor v Watkins 1874
Allen held a yearly tenancy of premises subject to a yearly sub-tenancy of part. The sub-tenancy was afterwards acquired by the defendant. Allen surrendered his tenancy to the freeholder who re-let the premises to the plaintiff. Neither the tenancy . .
CitedPhipos v G and B Callegari 1910
(Obiter) The service of an upwards notice to quit on a head landlord by a head tenant had the same effect on a sub-tenancy as a surrender. . .
OverruledSparkes v Smart 1990
A notice to quit was served by the head landlord in collusion with the head tenant. . .

Cited by:
Appealed toBarrett and Others v Morgan CA 30-Jun-1998
An artificial surrender of a head lease with the sole intention of defeating a sub tenancy was not effective and the subtenant became head tenant in their stead. The collusion defeated the ruse. ‘It is unilateral notices to quit that destroy . .
CitedPW and Co v Milton Gate Investments Ltd (BT Property Ltd and another, Part 20 defendants) ChD 8-Aug-2003
The parties, head lessor and sub-lessess, had assumed that following Brown -v- Wilson the sub-lease would continue upon the determination of the head lease, and had overlooked Pennell which overruled Brown v Wilson. However the lease made express . .
CitedBellcourt Estates Ltd v Adesina CA 18-Feb-2005
The landlord sought to recover arrears of rent. The tenant said that she had surrendered the lease of the properties. The judge had held that she ceased to occupy the premises from November 2000, after which the landlord did not send a demand for . .
CitedBellcourt Estates Ltd v Adesina CA 18-Feb-2005
The landlord sought to recover arrears of rent. The tenant said that she had surrendered the lease of the properties. The judge had held that she ceased to occupy the premises from November 2000, after which the landlord did not send a demand for . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Agriculture, Constitutional

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.159035

Malcolmson v O’Dea: HL 1863

A private fishery may be established by prescription.
Willes J said: ‘The soil of ‘navigable tidal rivers,’ like the Shannon, so far as the tide flows and reflows, is prima facie in the Crown, and the right of fishery prima facie in the public. But for Magna Charta, the Crown could, by its prerogative, exclude the public from such prima facie right, and grant the exclusive right of fishery to a private individual, either together with or distinct from the soil. And the great charter left untouched all fisheries which were made several, to the exclusion of the public, by Act of the Crown not later than the reign of Henry II.
If evidence be given of long enjoyment of a fishery, to the exclusion of others, of such a character as to establish that it has been dealt with as of right as a distinct and separate property, and there is nothing to show that its origin was modern, the result is not that you say, this is usurpation, for it is not traced back to the time of Henry II, but that you presume that the fishery being reasonably shown to have been dealt with as property, must have become such in due course of law, and therefore must have been created before legal memory.’

Willes J
(1863) 10 HL Cas 618
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedLoose v Lynn Shellfish Ltd and Others CA 19-Jun-2014
The parties disputed the rights to take shellfish from the foreshore. Fishermen now appealed against a finding as to the extent of a private fishery from which they were excluded, in particular as to the rights overfomer sandbanks, at the western, . .
CitedLynn Shellfish Ltd and Others v Loose and Another SC 13-Apr-2016
The court was asked as to the extent of an exclusive prescriptive right (ie an exclusive right obtained through a long period of use) to take cockles and mussels from a stretch of the foreshore on the east side of the Wash, on the west coast of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Agriculture

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.526741

Reeves (Valuation Officer) v Tunnel Tech Ltd: UTLC 7 Apr 2014

RATING – Agricultural exemption – Local Government Finance Act 1988, s.51, Schedule 5, paragraph 1 – paragraph 2 (1)(d), meaning of agricultural land – whether hereditament consisting of buildings ‘anything which consists of a market garden, nursery ground’ – paragraph 3(b), meaning of agricultural building – whether hereditament ‘is or forms part of a market garden’ – appeal succeeds

HH David Mole QC
[2014] UKUT 159 (LC)
Bailii
Local Government Finance Act 1988 51
England and Wales

Rating, Agriculture

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.525948

Slovakia v Commission: ECFI 29 Mar 2012

ECFI Agriculture – Common organization of markets – Measures to be adopted on account of the accession of new Member States – Act of Accession of 2003 – Determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar and financial consequences of their elimination – Objective pursued by a provision of primary law – Decision 2007/361/CE

Truchot P
T-247/07, [2012] EUECJ T-247/07
Bailii
European

Agriculture

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.452639

Commission v Italy: ECJ 22 May 2014

ECJ Judgment – Failure to fulfill obligations – Directive 1999/74/EC – Articles 3 and 5, paragraph 2 – Prohibition of rearing laying hens in unenriched cages – Breeding laying hens in cages do not comply with requirements arising under this Directive

Safjan, P
C-339/13, [2014] EUECJ C-339/13
Bailii
Directive 1999/74/EC
European

Animals, Agriculture

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.525831

Pontini and Others: ECJ 24 Jun 2010

Europa Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Beef and veal – Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 – Community financial aid concerning special premiums for male bovine animals and payments for extensification – Conditions for granting – Calculation of the stocking density on the holding – Meaning of ‘available forage area’ – Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 and Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 – Integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes – National legislation making the grant of Community financial aid conditional upon production of a valid legal document attesting to the right to use the areas under forage.

C-375/08, [2010] EUECJ C-375/08
Bailii
European

Agriculture

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.420197

Regina v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte Country Landowners Association: ECJ 9 Nov 1995

ECJ 1. Neither Articles 13 and 15 of Regulation No 3567/92 laying down detailed rules for the application of the individual limits, national reserves and transfer of rights provided for in Regulation No 3013/89 on the common organization of the market in sheepmeat and goatmeat nor Articles 39 and 55 of Regulation No 3886/92 laying down detailed rules for the application of the premium schemes provided for in Regulation No 805/68 on the common organization of the market in beef and repealing Regulations No 1244/82 and No 714/89, nor any general principle of Community law require Member States to introduce a mechanism for compensating detriment caused to owners of agricultural land by the introduction of a system of premium rights linked to producers of sheepmeat, goatmeat or beef and veal, even where premium rights are transferred by producers who do not own the land on which they farm.
No such obligation can, in particular, be derived from the principle of protection of the right to property because, even if it has an adverse impact on the capital value of land as a result of the transfer of premium rights by producers who do not own the land on which they farm, the introduction of a system of premium rights linked to producers does not impair the right to property inasmuch as advantages allocated under a common market organization cannot be regarded as a right derived from the assets or occupational activity of the persons concerned, the attribution or transfer of which should be accompanied by an obligation to pay compensation on the part of one of the parties to a lease.
2. Neither Articles 13 and 15 of Commission Regulation No 3567/92 laying down detailed rules for the application of the individual limits, national reserves and transfer of rights provided for in Regulation No 3013/89 on the common organization of the market in sheepmeat and goatmeat nor Articles 39 and 55 of Commission Regulation No 3886/92 laying down detailed rules for the application of the premium schemes provided for in Regulation No 805/68 on the common organization of the market in beef, which confine the power granted to the Member States to adopting measures for resolving problems arising in contractual relationships which were in existence when the regulations entered into force, are inconsistent with the Council regulations, Regulations No 3013/89 and No 805/68 respectively, which they implement and which contain no such limitation.
Where contractual relations are concluded after the regulations entered into force, the parties may take into account the consequences of the said premium systems and make contractual provision for any resultant problems.

JC Moitinho de Almeida R
[1996] 2 EGLR 1, C-38/94, [1995] EUECJ C-38/94, [1996] 36 EG 143, [1995] ECR I-3875, [1996] 2 CMLR 193
Bailii
European

Agriculture

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.161282

Mott, Regina (on The Application of) v The Environment Agency and Another: Admn 13 Feb 2015

The claimant challenged new conditions imposed on licences to operate his salmon fishery in the Severn Estuary, which operated to defeat his tenancy of the fishery.
Held: The request for review succeeded. The decisions to impose the catch conditions were irrational, as the Report did not provide a reasonable basis for the view that the putcher installations were having a material effect on the salmon fishery in the river Wye. Further, the Agency could not under A1P1 properly have imposed the conditions, if otherwise lawful, without payment of compensation.
There was an appropriate need for some regulation, but the evidence suggested that the Agency had given no effective consideration to the effect of the new terms on the claimant’s livelihood, and ‘even if the Agency could properly have imposed the total catch limit that it did, the size of that limit and the way in which it was apportioned would still have meant that the claimant has been required to shoulder an excessive and disproportionate burden, such that a breach of A1P1 could only be prevented by payment of compensation.’
The judge referred to a sentence in the Habitats Regulations Assessment for 2013 which explained that under the new regime ‘the catch by the most productive estuary fisheries will be restricted to the approximate long-term de minimus (sic) catch.’, saying: ‘The final sentence quoted above was explained as meaning that the number of fish allowed per licence was set as being approximately the ten year average catch of the least productive of all the fisheries licensed. The practical result for the claimant is that his fishery of 650 putchers is given the same catch allocation as the smallest and least effective of the other putcher fisheries, which may operate 50 baskets or less. These he says are not commercially viable but operated only as a hobby. Plainly, the heaviest impact of this policy falls on the claimant who relies on the fishery for his living rather than the smaller operators.’

Cooke HHJ
[2015] EWHC 314 (Admin), [2016] Env LR 27
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights A1P1
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedBack v Finland ECHR 20-Jul-2004
The claimant was the owner of a substantial debt owed by another individual. However the value of his debt was reduced to a very small level when the debtor entered a statutory scheme for compromise of debts.
Held: It must be open to a . .
CitedSporrong and Lonnroth v Sweden ECHR 18-Dec-1984
Balance of Interests in peaceful enjoyment claim
An interference with the peaceful enjoyment of possessions must strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interests of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights. This balance is . .
CitedTrailer and Marina (Leven) Ltd, Regina (ex parte) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Another CA 15-Dec-2004
The claimant sought a declaration that the 1981 Act, as amended, interfered with the peaceful enjoyment of its possession, namely a stretch of canal which had been declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest, with the effect that it was unusable. . .
CitedAXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others SC 12-Oct-2011
Standing to Claim under A1P1 ECHR
The appellants had written employers’ liability insurance policies. They appealed against rejection of their challenge to the 2009 Act which provided that asymptomatic pleural plaques, pleural thickening and asbestosis should constitute actionable . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromMott, Regina (on The Application of) v Environment Agency and Another CA 17-Jun-2016
The applicant challenged restrictions on salmon fishing imposed by the respondent. At first instance they were held to be irrational, and the Agency appealed.
Held: The Regulations were not irrational and that element of the appeal succeeded, . .
At first InstanceMott, Regina (on The Application of) v Environment Agency SC 14-Feb-2018
The Court considered the legality under the European Convention on Human Rights of licensing conditions imposed by the Environment Agency restricting certain forms of salmon-fishing in the Severn Estuary. The claimant operated a licensed putcher . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agriculture, Human Rights

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.543779

Bloomsbury International Ltd v Sea Fish Industry Authority and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: SC 15 Jun 2011

The 1995 Regulations imposed a levy on fish both caught and first landed in the UK and also on imported fish products. The claimants, importers challenged the validity of the latter charges, saying that they went beyond the power given by the 1981 Act, and also were contrary to EU law.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The power given by the statute did extend to allow the imposition of such a levy on imported fish products. It was not a charge equivalent to a customs duty within EU law. The word ‘landed’ could be given a wider or narrower interpretation. The narrower sense would apply to fish landed direct from the fishing vessel which had caught it, and the wider sense would additionally include products brought here in other ways. The earlier schemes had included such wider methods and there was no reason to think any change had been intended.
Lord Mance JSC, considering the meaning of the word ‘landed’ in s.4(3) of the Fisheries Act 1981: ‘In matters of statutory construction, the statutory purpose and the general scheme by which it is to be put into effect are of central importance. They represent the context in which individual words are to be understood. In this area as in the area of contractual construction, ‘the notion of words having a natural meaning’ is not always very helpful (see Charter Reinsurance Co. Ltd v Fagan [1997] AC 313, 391C, per Lord Hoffmann), and certainly not as a starting point, before identifying the legislative purpose and scheme. In the case of a statute which has, like the 1981 Act, been the subject of amendment it is not lightly to be concluded that Parliament, when making the amendment, misunderstood the general scheme of the general legislation, with the effect of creating a palpable anomaly . . ‘
Lord Philips noted that ‘for nearly 30 years everyone concerned proceeded on the basis that the phrase [‘landed in the United Kingdom’] should be given the broad meaning’ for which one of the parties contended.
He continued: ‘In circumstances such as these there must be, at the very least, a powerful presumption that the meaning that has customarily been given to the phrase in issue is the correct one. Carnwath LJ expressed one reason for this in Isle of Anglesey County Council v Welsh Ministers [2010] 10 QB 163, para 43:
‘Where an Act has been interpreted in a particular way without dissent over a long period, those interested should be able to continue to order their affairs on that basis without the risk of being upset by a novel approach.’
This has the air of pragmatism rather than principle, but courts are understandably reluctant to disturb a settled construction and the practice that has been based on that construction: see Bennion on Statutory Interpretation, 5th Ed (2008), s.288, p.913, and the authorities there cited.’

Lord Phillips, President, Lord Walker, Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Collins
[2011] UKSC 25, UKSC 2010/0098
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary
Fisheries Act 1981 4(3), Sea Fish Industry Authority (Levy) Regulations 1995
England and Wales
Citing:
At first instanceBloomsbury International Ltd and Others v Sea Fish Industry Authority and Another QBD 24-Jul-2009
Parties challenged the legality of a levy imposed by the defendant for the purposes of supporting the sea food industry. They said that a levy imposed on fish products imported to the UK was beyond the powers given by the 1981 Act, and was contrary . .
CitedCharter Reinsurance Co Ltd v Fagan and Others HL 24-May-1996
The re-insurers appealed against a finding that they were liable to make payment under a contract which required them to pay ‘sums actually paid.’ They said that the company having become insolvent, no payment would in fact be made.
Held: The . .
Appeal fromBloomsbury International Ltd and Others v The Sea Fish Industry Authority and Another CA 18-Mar-2010
The company, importers of fish, challenged the lawfulness of Regulations which imposed a levy requiring them to contribute to the training of UK fishermen.
Held: The company’s appeal succeeded. . .
CitedCommission v Italy C-73/79 ECJ 21-May-1980
ECJ (Judgment) A measure carried out by means of discriminatory taxation, which may be considered at the same time as forming part of an aid within the meaning of article 92 of the EEC treaty, is governed both by . .
MentionedCarmine Capolongo v Azienda Agricole Maya. (Aids Granted By A Member State ) ECJ 19-Jun-1973
. .
CitedSteinike and Weinlig v Federal Republic Of Germany ECJ 22-Mar-1977
A customs charge may be regarded as levied solely or exclusively by reason of its crossing a frontier, although it is applied at a later stage, such as marketing or processing of the product: ‘the prohibition [of a CEE] is aimed at any tax demanded . .
CitedCriminal Proceedings Against JAWMJ Kortmann ECJ 28-Jan-1981
ECJ In the case of imported pharmaceutical products which have already been registered at the request of the manufacturer or the duly appointed importer, article 36 does not prevent national authorities from . .
CitedMarleasing SA v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentacion SA ECJ 13-Nov-1990
Sympathetic construction of national legislation
LMA OVIEDO sought a declaration that the contracts setting up Commercial International were void (a nullity) since they had been drawn up in order to defraud creditors. Commercial International relied on an EC . .
CitedProceedings brought by Outokumpu Oy ECJ 2-Apr-1998
An excise duty which is charged on electricity of domestic origin at rates which vary according to its method of production, while being levied on imported electricity at a flat rate which is higher than the lowest rate but lower than the highest . .
CitedHaahr Petroleum v Abenra Havn and others ECJ 17-Jul-1997
(Judgment) Maritime transport – Goods duty – Import surcharge . .
CitedPepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart HL 26-Nov-1992
Reference to Parliamentary Papers behind Statute
The inspector sought to tax the benefits in kind received by teachers at a private school in having their children educated at the school for free. Having agreed this was a taxable emolument, it was argued as to whether the taxable benefit was the . .
CitedCommission v France (Rec 1981,P 283) (Judgment) ECJ 3-Feb-1981
ECJ 1. The prohibition of charges having an effect equivalent to customs duties covers any charge exacted at the time of or on account of importation which, being borne specifically by an imported product to the . .
CitedCompagnie commerciale de l’Ouest v Receveur principal des douanes de La Pallice-Port ECJ 11-Mar-1992
A parafiscal charge applied under the same conditions as regards its collection to both domestic and imported products, the revenue from which is used for the benefit of domestic products only, so that the advantages accruing from it wholly offset . .
CitedCommission v France (Rec 1981,P 283) (Judgment) ECJ 3-Feb-1981
ECJ 1. The prohibition of charges having an effect equivalent to customs duties covers any charge exacted at the time of or on account of importation which, being borne specifically by an imported product to the . .
CitedThe Trustees of Clyde Navigation v Laird and Sons HL 1883
The court was asked whether the Clyde Navigation Consolidation Act 1858 required dues to be paid on logs which were chained together and floated down the River Clyde. The evidence was that these dues had been levied and paid without protest for a . .
CitedIsle of Anglesey County Council and Another v The Welsh Ministries and others CA 20-Feb-2009
The claimants, the Commissioners and the County Council, sought declarations to establish their right to build a marina on parts of the foreshore currently used for commercial mussel fishing. Section 40 of the 1868 Act authorised ministers to make . .
CitedHarald Weigel and Ingrid Weigel v Finanzlandesdirektion fur Vorarlberg ECJ 29-Apr-2004
ECJ Free movement of workers – Importing a car – Consumption tax type (‘Normverbrauchsabgabe’) – Customs duties and charges having equivalent effect – Discriminatory Taxation – Sixth VAT Directive – Tax on sales. . .
CitedKapniki Mikhailidis AE v Idryma Kinonikon Asphaliseon (Free Movement Of Goods) (Danish) ECJ 21-Sep-2000
Europa Charges having equivalent effect – the export of tobacco – duty in favour of a social fund. Action to obtain a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Articles 9 and 12 (now Article 23 EC and 25 EC) . .
CitedSARL Denkavit Loire v Etat Francais, administration des douanes ECJ 31-May-1979
ECJ Any pecuniary charge, whatever its designation and mode of application, which is imposed unilaterally on goods by reason of the fact that they cross a frontier and which is not a customs duty in the strict . .
CitedCommission v France (Rec 1981,P 283) (Judgment) ECJ 3-Feb-1981
ECJ 1. The prohibition of charges having an effect equivalent to customs duties covers any charge exacted at the time of or on account of importation which, being borne specifically by an imported product to the . .
CitedInco Europe Ltd and Others v First Choice Distribution (A Firm) and Others CA 10-Sep-1998
The Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear an appeal against a judge’s grant or refusal of an order staying court proceedings where arbitration was sought by one party under an agreement. . .
CitedCommission v Belgium ECJ 26-Jun-1991
ECJ Tax provisions – Domestic taxation – System of taxation of beer – Levying of excise duty on the hot wort, regardless of wastage incurred in preparing the finished product – Flat-rate adjustment of excise duty . .
CitedSanders Adour and Guyomarc’h Orthez v Directeur des services fiscaux des Pyrenees-Atlantiques ECJ 11-Jun-1992
Community law, and in particular the machinery of the common agricultural policy laid down for the cereals sector in, inter alia, Regulation No 2727/75 on the common organization of the market in cereals, precludes a Member State from levying a . .
CitedCommission v Luxembourg ECJ 26-Jun-1991
ECJ Tax provisions – Domestic taxation – System of taxation of beer – Levying of excise duty on the hot wort, regardless of wastage incurred in preparing the finished product – Flat-rate adjustment of excise duty . .

Cited by:
CitedBritish Pregnancy Advisory Service, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care Admn 5-Jun-2019
Abortion Time Limit statement was correct.
The Court considered ‘ the correct interpretation of the words, ‘the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week’ in s.1(1)(a) of the Abortion Act 1967 ‘ The guidance was challenged as the calculations. The date of the beginning of the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agriculture, European

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.440730

Societa Fondiaria Industriale Romagnola Spa v Agea – Agenzia Per Le Erogazioni In Agricoltura: ECJ 14 Nov 2013

Request for a preliminary ruling – Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 -Regulation (EC) No 968/2006 – Agriculture – Temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry – Conditions for granting restructuring aid – Concepts of ‘production facilities’ and ‘full dismantling’)

A. Tizzano, P
C-187/12, [2013] EUECJ C-187/12
Bailii

European, Agriculture

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.517797

National Trust for Places of Historic Interest v Birden: ChD 31 Jul 2009

The parties had entered into an old-form share farm agreement in 1994. The tenant later became a farm business tenant on other land. The claimant sought a share of the Single Payment Scheme calculated with reference to the period in which the defendant had been their tenant, seeking to imply a term into the agreement for this purpose. The tenant denied that there had been any agency for the claimant.
Held: The agreement covered existing subsidy schemes only, and ‘Taken as a whole, the purpose of the clause was to ensure that under the existing scheme, even though the entitlement to subsidy was that of the farmer, i.e. Mr Birden, on the termination of the Agreement Mr Birden would make no claim to retain the quota. He made no such claim. It was implicit that the quota belonging to NT would be transferred back to NT. This Mr Birden attempted to do, but was not permitted to do so because of the way that the new scheme was interpreted by DEFRA and the Rural Payment Agency.’
Furthermore, the condition for payment arose from the defendants current activities, and was only calculated by reference to his historic activities including the agreement at issue. As to the agency, the claimant had drafted the agreement to include for its own protection, a denial of the existence of any agency. The claim failed.

Toulmin CMG QC J
[2009] EWHC 2023 (Ch)
Bailii
Council Regulation (EC) No.1782/2003, Commission Regulation (EC) No.795/2004
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedPease and Another v McMillan and Others CA 2-Apr-2009
A farm had been sold subject to a farm tenancy and with an obligation to secure vacant possession. The parties disputed the assignment of the Single Payment farm subsidy.
Held: The 2003 Council Regulation provides a scheme for single payments . .
CitedParagon Finance Plc (Formerly Known As National Home Loans Corporation Plc v D B Thakerar and Co (a Firm); Ranga and Co (a Firm) and Sterling Financial Services Limited CA 21-Jul-1998
Where an action had been begun on basis of allegations of negligence and breach of trust, new allegations of fraud where quite separate new causes of claim, and went beyond amendments and were disallowed outside the relevant limitation period. . .
CitedBanner Homes Group Plc v Luff Developments and Another CA 10-Feb-2000
Competing building companies agreed not to bid against each other for the purchase of land. One proceeded and the other asserted that the land was then held on trust for the two parties as a joint venture.
Held: Although there was no formal . .
CitedGarnac Grain Co Inc v HMF Faure and Fairclough PC 1967
The Board was asked what was necessary to establish the raltionship of principal and agent.
Held: In the essence of agency is the element of consent.
Where there is an available market for the goods, the market price is determined as at . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Agriculture

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.368642

Horvath v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: ECJ 16 Jul 2009

ECJ Common agricultural policy Direct support schemes Regulation (EC) No 1782/ 2003 Article 5 and Annex IV Minimum requirements for good agricultural and environmental condition Maintenance of rights of way Implementation by a Member State Transfer of powers to regional authorities of a Member State Discrimination contrary to Community law
The Court considered a Memorandum of Understanding between the UK government and the Scottish Government assigning to the devolved administration responsibility for the implementation of Community law concerning the common agricultural policy. The relevant EC Regulation empowered Member States to set minimum standards of compliance at national or regional level. Mr Horvath complained that regulations requiring the maintenance by landowners of public rights of way over agricultural land infringed the Community law principle of equality because equivalent obligations had not been imposed by the devolved administration in Scotland. The Advocate-General, in her Opinion, had advised that differences in the way that Community obligations were implemented by different devolved administrations could not be regarded as discriminatory because they ‘cannot be attributed to the conduct of the same public authority’
Held: The Grand Chamber reached the same conclusion, but on a broader basis, namely that such differences were inherent in the distribution of responsibility for implementing Community law among distinct territorial units of government within a Member State. They were therefore no more discriminatory than differences in the way that EU law was implemented by different Member States:
‘As a preliminary point, it should be pointed out that, in conferring on Member States the responsibility of defining minimum GAEC requirements, the Community legislature gives them the possibility of taking into account the regional differences which exist on their territory.
It should be recalled that, when provisions of the Treaty or of regulations confer power or impose obligations upon the States for the purposes of the implementation of Community law, the question of how the exercise of such powers and the fulfilment of such obligations may be entrusted by Member States to specific national bodies is solely a matter for the constitutional system of each State (Joined Cases 51/71 to 54/71 International Fruit Co and Others [1971] ECR 1107, para 4).
Thus, it is settled case-law that each Member State is free to allocate powers internally and to implement Community acts which are not directly applicable by means of measures adopted by regional or local authorities, provided that that allocation of powers enables the Community legal measures in question to be implemented correctly (Case C-156/91 Hansa Fleisch Ernst Mundt [1992] ECR I-5567, para 23).
The Court has, in addition, held that, where a regulation empowers a Member State to take implementing measures, the detailed rules for the exercise of that power are governed by the public law of the Member State in question (see (Case 230/78) Eridania-Zuccherifici nazionali and Societa italiana per l’industria degli zuccheri [1979] ECR 2749, para 34, and Case C-313/99 Mulligan and Others [2002] ECR I-5719, para 48).
. . It must nevertheless be examined whether, in those circumstances, the mere fact that the rules establishing GAEC laid down by the regional authorities of the same Member State differ constitutes discrimination contrary to Community law.
. . Where, as in the main proceedings, it is the devolved administrations of a Member State which have the power to define the GAEC minimum requirements within the meaning of article 5 of and Annex IV to Regulation No 1782/2003, divergences between the measures provided for by the various administrations cannot, alone, constitute discrimination. Those measures must, as is clear from para 50 of this judgment, be compatible with the obligations on the Member State in question which stem from that regulation.
In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the second question is that, where the constitutional system of a Member State provides that devolved administrations are to have legislative competence, the mere adoption by those administrations of different GAEC standards under article 5 of and Annex IV to Regulation No 1782/2003 does not constitute discrimination contrary to Community law.’

V. Skouris, P
ECLI:EU:C:2009:458, [2009] 30 EG 66, [2009] ECR I-6355, [2009] EUECJ C-428/07
Bailii
egulation (EC) No 1782/ 2003
Citing:
OpinionHorvath v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ECJ 3-Feb-2009
ECJ (Opinion) Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales (United Kingdom).
‘where the constitutional system of a member state provides that devolved . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Agriculture, Constitutional

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.563286

Rees v Windsor-Clive and Others: ChD 11 Nov 2020

Alleged Serious Irregularity in Arbitration

The claimant as tenant challenged an arbitration award alleging serious irregularities in the arbitration process under section 68 of the 1996 Act. The court considered whether at the time of service of the notice the land must then be required for use.
Held: No serious irregularity was shown.

Jarman QC HHJ
[2020] EWHC 2986 (Ch)
Bailii
Agricultural Holdings Act 1986, Arbitration Act 1996 68 69
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Agriculture, Arbitration

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.655629

Zuchtvieh-Export v Stadt Kempten: ECJ 11 Sep 2014

ECJ Advocate General’s Opinion – Preliminary reference – Agriculture – Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 – Protection of animals during transport – Transport of animals from one Member State to a third country – Article 14, paragraph 1 – Check the logbook to make by the competent authority of the place before starting the long journeys – Annex I, Chapter V – Provisions regarding maintenance of water and feed as well as journey times and rest – Applicability of these provisions in Regarding the part of the transport takes place outside the territory of the Union

Bot AG
C-424/13, [2014] EUECJ C-424/13 – O, [2015] EUECJ C-424/13
Bailii, Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 1/2005

European, Agriculture, Animals

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.536727

French Republic v United Kingdom of Great Britain And Northern Ireland: ECJ 11 Jul 2013

ECJ Appeal – Action for annulment – Protection against transmissible spongiform encephalopathies – Regulation (EC) No 746/2008 – Regulation authorising less restrictive measures of surveillance and eradication than those previously laid down – Precautionary principle – Level of protection of human health – New elements capable of altering the perception of the risk – Failure to state reasons – Distortion of the facts – Error of law

C-601/11, [2013] EUECJ C-601/11
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 746/2008
European

European, Health, Agriculture

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.512342

Slancheva Sila Eood v Izpalnitelen Direktor Na Darzhaven Fond ‘Zemedelie’ Razplashtatelna Agentsia: ECJ 12 Sep 2013

ECJ Common agricultural policy – EAFRD – Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 – Support for rural development – Support for the creation and development of micro-enterprises – Concept of ‘artificially created conditions’ – Abuses – Evidence

M Berger, P
C-434/12, [2013] EUECJ C-434/12
Bailii
Regulation (EU) No 65/2011
European

Agriculture

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.515255

Pioneer Hi Bred Italia Srl v Ministero Delle Politiche Agricole Alimentari E Forestali: ECJ 6 Sep 2012

pioneer_ministeroECJ2012

ECJ Agriculture – Genetically modified organisms – Council Directive 2002/53/EC – Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species – Genetically modified organisms accepted for inclusion in the common catalogue – Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 – Article 20 – Existing products -Directive 2001/18/EC – Article 26a – Measures to avoid the unintended presence of genetically modified organisms – National measures prohibiting the cultivation of genetically modified organisms accepted for inclusion in the common catalogue and authorised as existing products pending measures based on Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC.

J-C Bonichot P
C-36/11, [2012] EUECJ C-36/11, [2012] WLR(D) 262
Bailii
Directive 2001/18/EC 26a, Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 20

European, Agriculture

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.464454

Nijemeisland v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit (Agriculture): ECJ 11 Jun 2009

Europa Common agricultural policy – Beef and veal Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 Article 3a Integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes – Single payment – Determination of reference amount – Reductions and exclusions.

C-170/08, [2009] EUECJ C-170/08
Bailii
European

Agriculture

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.347046

Geodis Calberson Ge v Etablissement National Des Produits De L’Agriculture Et De La Mer: ECJ 17 Jan 2013

ECJ Agriculture – Food aid – Regulation (EC) No 111/1999 – Programme to supply agricultural products to the Russian Federation – Successful tenderer for a contract for the transport of beef – Conferring of jurisdiction – Arbitration clause

A. Tizzano, P
C-623/11, [2013] EUECJ C-623/11
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 111/1999
European

Agriculture

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.470201

Regina v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Secretary of State For Health, ex Parte Fedesa and Others: ECJ 13 Nov 1990

ECJ 1. Community law – Principles – Legal certainty – Protection of legitimate expectations – Prohibition of the use in livestock farming of certain substances having a hormonal action in the absence of unanimity as to their harmlessness – Infringement – None (Council Directive 88/146) 2. Community law – Principles – Proportionality – Prohibition of an economic activity – Whether disproportionate – Assessment criteria – Discretionary power of the Community legislature in the field of the common agricultural policy – Judicial review – Limits (EEC Treaty, Arts 40 and 43) 3. Community law – Principles – Equal treatment – Harmonization measure applied equally to all the Member States – Differing effects depending on the previous state of national law – Discrimination – None 4. Agriculture – Approximation of laws – Prohibition of the use in livestock farming of certain substances having a hormonal action – Objectives pursued – Choice of legal basis – Article 43 of the Treaty – Misuse of powers – None
(EEC Treaty, Arts 39 and 43, Council Directive 88/146) 5. Measures adopted by the Community institutions – Procedure for enactment – Preparatory documents not affected by a procedural defect occurring at the stage of the final decision in the Council leading to annulment by the Court – Adoption of a new measure on the basis of earlier preparatory documents -Legality 6. Measures adopted by the Community institutions – Application ratione temporis – Period for compliance by the Member States with a directive expiring prior to its adoption – Retroactive effect – Permissibility in the light of the objective to be attained and in the absence of any infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations – Limits -Principle of non-retroactivity of penal provisions (Council Directive 88/146, Art. 10)
1. Having regard to the divergent appraisals by the national authorities of the Member States, reflected in the differences between existing national legislation, of the dangers which may result from the use of certain substances having a hormonal action, the Council, in deciding in the exercise of its discretionary power to adopt the solution of prohibiting them, neither infringed the principle of legal certainty nor frustrated the legitimate expectations of traders affected by that measure. 2. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, which is one of the general principles of Community law, the lawfulness of the prohibition of an economic activity is subject to the condition that the prohibitory measures are appropriate and necessary in order to achieve the objectives legitimately pursued by the legislation in question, it being understood that when there is a choice between several appropriate measures recourse must be had to the least onerous, and the disadvantages caused must not be disproportionate to the aims pursued. However, with regard to judicial review of compliance with those conditions it must be borne in mind that in matters concerning the common agricultural policy the Community legislature has a discretionary power which corresponds to the political responsibilities given to it by Articles 40 and 43 of the Treaty. Consequently, the legality of a measure adopted in that sphere can be affected only if the measure is manifestly inappropriate having regard to the objective which the competent institution is seeking to pursue. 3. Although a harmonization measure which is intended to standardize previously disparate rules of the Member States inevitably produces different effects depending on the prior state of the various national laws, there cannot be said to be discrimination where it applies equally to all Member States. 4. A decision may amount to a misuse of powers only if it appears, on the basis of objective, relevant and consistent factors, to have been taken with the exclusive purpose, or at any rate the main purpose, of achieving an end other than that stated or evading a procedure specifically prescribed by the Treaty for dealing with the circumstances of the case. That was not so in the case of Directive 88/146 prohibiting the use in livestock farming of certain substances having a hormonal action, which was adopted by the Council on the basis of Article 43 of the Treaty alone. By regulating conditions of the production and marketing of meat in order to improve its quality while curbing surplus production, that directive falls within the scope of the measures provided for by the common organization of the markets in meat and thus contributes to the attainment of the objectives set out in Article 39 of the Treaty. 5. The annulment by a judgment of the Court of a Council directive on account of a procedural defect concerning solely the manner in which it was finally adopted by the Council does not affect the preparatory acts of the other institutions. Therefore, these acts need not be repeated when the Council adopts a new directive replacing the one which has been annulled. Changes occurring in the interval in the composition of those institutions are of no effect since they do not affect the continuity of the institutions themselves. Whether or not a subsequent change in circumstances must be taken into consideration is for each institution to assess. 6. By fixing 1 January 1988 as the date of expiry of the period for implementation of Directive 88/146 prohibiting the use in livestock farming of substances having a hormonal action, Article 10 of the directive gives it retroactive effect in so far as the directive was adopted and notified in March 1988. Outside the criminal sphere, such retroactive effect is permissible, since, first, the directive replaced an earlier directive annulled because of a procedural defect, and the Council considered it necessary in order to avoid a temporary legal vacuum during the period between the annulment of one instrument and its replacement by a lawfully adopted text with regard to the existence of a basis in Community law for national provisions adopted by the Member States in order to comply with the directive which was annulled, and, secondly, there was no infringement of the legitimate expectations of the traders concerned, in light of the rapid succession of the two directives and the reason for which the first one was annulled. As regards the criminal sphere, on the other hand, Article 10 of the directive cannot be interpreted as requiring Member States to adopt measures which conflict with Community law, in particular with the principle that penal provisions may not have retroactive effect, which Community law incorporates, as a fundamental right, among its general principles. Nor may it provide a basis for criminal proceedings instituted under provisions of national law which may have been adopted in implementation of the annulled directive and whose sole basis is to be found therein.
In relation to an alleged infringement of the principle of legal certainty: ‘ . . having regard to the discretionary power conferred on the Council in the implementation of the common agricultural policy, be limited to examining whether the measure in question is vitiated by a manifest error or misuse of powers, or whether the authority in question has manifestly exceeded the limits of its discretion.’
and . . ‘The Court has consistently held that the principle of proportionality is one of the general principles of Community law. By virtue of that principle, the lawfulness of the prohibition of an economic activity is subject to the condition that the prohibitory measures are appropriate and necessary in order to achieve the objectives legitimately pursued by the legislation in question; when there is a choice between several appropriate measures recourse must be had to the least onerous, and the disadvantages caused must not be disproportionate to the aims pursued.’

C-331/88, R-88/14, [1990] EUECJ R-88/146, [1990] ECR I-4023
Bailii
EEC Treaty 39 43, Council Directive 88/146
European
Cited by:
CitedConsorzio Del Prosciutto Di Parma v Asda Stores Limited and others HL 8-Feb-2001
The name ‘Parma Ham’ was controlled as to its use under Italian law, and the associated mark, the ‘corona ducale’, was to be applied to a sale of Parma Ham, including any packaging. Proper Parma Ham was imported and resold through the defendant’s . .
CitedBank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 2) SC 19-Jun-2013
The bank challenged measures taken by HM Treasury to restrict access to the United Kingdom’s financial markets by a major Iranian commercial bank, Bank Mellat, on the account of its alleged connection with Iran’s nuclear weapons and ballistic . .
CitedRotherham Metropolitan Borough Council and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills SC 25-Feb-2015
Appeal about the distribution of European Structural Funds among the regions of the United Kingdom. It arises out of the complaint of a number of local authorities in Merseyside and South Yorkshire about the way in which it is proposed to distribute . .
CitedAkerman-Livingstone v Aster Communities Ltd SC 11-Mar-2015
Appeal about the proper approach of the courts where the defendant to a claim for possession of his home raises a defence of unlawful discrimination, contrary to the Equality Act 2010, by the claimant landlord. In particular, the issue is whether . .
CitedLumsdon and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Legal Services Board SC 24-Jun-2015
The appellant, barristers and solicitors, challenged the respondent’s approval of alterations to their regulatory arrangements, under Part 3 of Schedule 4 to the 2007 Act. The alterations gave effect to the Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Agriculture, Health

Leading Case

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.134975

Vonk Dairy Products BV v Productschap Zuivel: ECJ 7 Jun 2006

ECJ Opinion – the Court is asked to interpret provisions governing the recovery of refunds paid to support export outside the Community of milk products, (2) when those products have subsequently been re-exported to a different country of destination. The issue arises because products exported to the United States were then re-exported to Canada. Exports made directly from the Community to Canada would have attracted a lower rate of refund than that payable on exports to the United States.

Sharpston AG
C-279/05, [2006] EUECJ C-279/05
Bailii
Cited by:
OpinionVonk Dairy Products BV v Productschap Zuivel ECJ 11-Jan-2007
ECJ Agriculture Common organisation of the markets Cheese Articles 16 to 18 of Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 Differentiated export refunds Almost immediate re-exportation from the country of importation Evidence of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Agriculture

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.510137

Donal Brady v Environmental Protection Agency: ECJ 16 May 2013

ECJ Environment – Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/156/EEC – Concept of ‘waste’ – Slurry produced on a pig farm – Storage until use as fertiliser – Classification as waste – Classification as a by-product – Burden of proof – Personal liability of the producer for the infringement of European Union law on the control of waste by third parties who use the slurry as fertiliser on their own land – Failure to transpose Directive 91/676 into national law – General principles of European Union law – Fundamental rights – Proportionality
Cruz Villalon AG
C-113/12, [2013] EUECJ C-113/12, [2013] EUECJ C-113/12
Bailii, Bailii
Directive 91/156/EEC, Directive 75/442/EEC

Updated: 30 October 2021; Ref: scu.509296

Dodson v Environment Agency: QBD 28 Feb 2013

The claimant asserted that the steps taken by the defendant to encourage wildlife in the estuary had led to otters predating his fish farm stocks, and that the claimant had not been informed of this, in particular as to the construction of otter holts, so as to allow him to take steps to protect his stock.
Held: The claim was dismissed: ‘the construction of the otter holts on the River Cegin did not impose on the defendant any duty of care at common law to advise the claimant in respect of otter predation and the protection of his own economic and proprietary interests.’
His Honour Judge Keyser QC sitting as a Judge of the High Court
[2013] EWHC 396 (QB)
Bailii
Environment Act 1995 13
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedGeddis v Proprietors of Bann Reservoir HL 18-Feb-1878
The owner of land injured by operations authorised by statute ‘suffers a private loss for the public benefit’, and in the absence of clear statutory authority is unable to claim: ‘It is now thoroughly well established that no action will lie for . .
CitedCaparo Industries Plc v Dickman and others HL 8-Feb-1990
Limitation of Loss from Negligent Mis-statement
The plaintiffs sought damages from accountants for negligence. They had acquired shares in a target company and, relying upon the published and audited accounts which overstated the company’s earnings, they purchased further shares.
Held: The . .
CitedStovin v Wise, Norfolk County Council (Third Party) HL 24-Jul-1996
Statutory Duty Does Not Create Common Law Duty
The mere existence of statutory power to remedy a defect cannot of itself create a duty of care to do so. A highway authority need not have a duty of care to highway users because of its duty to maintain the highway. The two stage test ‘involves . .
CitedGorringe v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council HL 1-Apr-2004
Statutory Duty Not Extended by Common Law
The claimant sought damages after a road accident. The driver came over the crest of a hill and hit a bus. The road was not marked with any warning as to the need to slow down.
Held: The claim failed. The duty could not be extended to include . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 October 2021; Ref: scu.519760

Salvesen v Riddell and Another; The Lord Advocate intervening (Scotland): SC 24 Apr 2013

The appellant owned farmland tenanted by a limited partnership. One partner gave notice and the remaining partners indicated a claim for a new tenancy. He was prevented from recovering possession by section 72 of the 2003 Act. Though his claim had been settled, the Court now considered the compatibility with his human rights of the section which purported to restrict his rights of appeal.
Held: The section was incompatible in purporting to remove his property rights without providing the possibility of an appeal. Article 1 was engaged, and though the provision pursued a proper aim, it was disproportionate. Section 72(10) of the 2003 Act denied the benefit of section 73. It was hard not to see the section as intending to deprive landlords of their rights retrospectively.
Lord Hope of Craighead explained the jurisprudence on Article 1 P1: ‘The tests to be applied are now firmly established. The second paragraph of A1P1 must be construed in the light of the principle laid down in the first sentence of the article. An interference must achieve a fair balance between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights. The search for this balance is reflected in the structure of the article as a whole and therefore also in the second paragraph. There must be a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim pursued.’
Lord Hope, Deputy President, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed, Lord Toulson
[2013] UKSC 22, UKSC 2012/0111, 2013 SLT 863, [2013] HRLR 23, 2014 SCLR 44, 2013 GWD 14-304
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC
Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 2003 72(9)(a)(i) 72(10), European Convention on Human Rights, Scotland Act 1998
Scotland
Citing:
CitedInland Revenue v Graham’s Trustees HL 1971
The House was asked as to the valuation of a farm. That turned in part on estate duty legislation and in part on whether, on the death of a partner, the surviving partners were entitled to take up the firm’s secure agricultural tenancy.
Held: . .
CitedMacFarlane v Falfield Investments Ltd SCS 1998
The practice had grown up of granting new agricultural tenancies to limited partnerships constituted under the Limited Partnerships Act 1907 in which the landlord or his nominee was the limited partner and the tenants of the farm were the general . .
At Scottish Land CourtSalvesen v Riddell SLC 29-Jul-2010
SLC Agricultural holdings – limited partnership tenancy – limited partner being agent of landlord – notice of dissolution of partnership validly given – notice given on 3 Feb 2003 – expected change of legislation . .
At Court of SessionSalvesen v Riddell and Another SCS 15-Mar-2012
Second Division – The court allowed an appeal under section 88(1) of the 2003 Act from a decision of the Scottish Land Court. The section was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court proceeded on the basis that section 72 . .
CitedSporrong and Lonnroth v Sweden ECHR 23-Sep-1982
Balance of Interests in peaceful enjoyment claim
(Plenary Court) The claimants challenged orders expropriating their properties for redevelopment, and the banning of construction pending redevelopment. The orders remained in place for many years.
Held: Article 1 comprises three distinct . .
CitedJames and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 21-Feb-1986
The claimants challenged the 1967 Act, saying that it deprived them of their property rights when lessees were given the power to purchase the freehold reversion.
Held: Article 1 (P1-1) in substance guarantees the right of property. Allowing a . .
CitedMellacher and Others v Austria ECHR 19-Dec-1989
The case concerned restrictions on the rent that a property owner could charge. The restrictions were applied to existing leases. It was said that the restrictions brought into play the second paragraph of Article 1 of the First Protocol to the . .
CitedSpadea And Scalabrino v Italy ECHR 28-Sep-1995
Hudoc Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); No violation of P1-1; No violation of Art. 14+P1-1 . .
CitedBarreto v Portugal ECHR 21-Nov-1995
No violation of Art. 8; No violation of P1-1. A restriction on a landlord’s right to terminate a tenant’s lease constitutes control of the use of property within the meaning of the second paragraph of the article . .
CitedHutten-Czapska v Poland ECHR 19-Jun-2006
Grand Chamber. The court considered the need for establishing a fair balance in cases under A1P1: ‘Not only must an interference with the right of property pursue, on the facts as well as in principle, a ‘legitimate aim’ in the ‘general interest’, . .
CitedGauci v Malta ECHR 15-Sep-2009
. .
CitedLindheim And Others v Norway ECHR 12-Jun-2012
. .
CitedMA and Others v Finland ECHR 10-Jun-2003
(Admissibility) Legislation which is retroactive is not necessarily incompatible with A1P1, retrospective legislation is not as such prohibited by A1P1. . .
CitedWilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2) HL 10-Jul-2003
The respondent appealed against a finding that the provision which made a loan agreement completely invalid for lack of compliance with the 1974 Act was itself invalid under the Human Rights Act since it deprived the respondent of its property . .
CitedGhaidan v Godin-Mendoza HL 21-Jun-2004
Same Sex Partner Entitled to tenancy Succession
The protected tenant had died. His same-sex partner sought a statutory inheritance of the tenancy.
Held: His appeal succeeded. The Fitzpatrick case referred to the position before the 1998 Act: ‘Discriminatory law undermines the rule of law . .
CitedBack v Finland ECHR 20-Jul-2004
The claimant was the owner of a substantial debt owed by another individual. However the value of his debt was reduced to a very small level when the debtor entered a statutory scheme for compromise of debts.
Held: It must be open to a . .
CitedDS v Her Majesty’s Advocate PC 22-May-2007
An amendment to the 1995 Act placed restrictions on the questioning of the complainer in trials of persons charged with sexual offences. The defendant appealed, saying that the restrictions were incompatible with the right to a fair trial under . .
CitedRB (Algeria) and Another v Secretary of State for the Home Department; OO (Jordan) v Same; MT (Algeria) v Same HL 18-Feb-2009
Fairness of SIAC procedures
Each defendant was to be deported for fear of involvement in terrorist activities, but feared that if returned to their home countries, they would be tortured. The respondent had obtained re-assurances from the destination governments that this . .
CitedMarckx v Belgium ECHR 13-Jun-1979
Recognition of illegitimate children
The complaint related to the manner in which parents were required to adopt their own illegitimate child in order to increase his rights. Under Belgian law, no legal bond between an unmarried mother and her child results from the mere fact of birth. . .
CitedWalden v Liechtenstein ECHR 16-Mar-2000
The Liechtenstein constitutional court had held that the unequal pension treatment afforded to married and unmarried couples was unconstitutional. The constitutional court did not set aside the existing legislation, given the practical difficulties . .
CitedCadder v Her Majesty’s Advocate SC 26-Oct-2010
Statement without lawyer access was inadmissible
The accused complained that he had been convicted for assault and breach of the peace on the basis of a statement made by him during an interview with the police where, under the 1995 Act, he had been denied access to a lawyer.
Held: The . .

Cited by:
At SCSalvesen v Riddell and Another SCS 6-Jan-2015
The appellant enrolled a motion requesting payment by the Land court of the costs occasioned in a long running legal dispute. . .
CitedHarvey, Regina v SC 16-Dec-2015
Police had discovered quantities of stolen goods at the appellant’s business premises. He was convicted of receiving stolen goods, and confiscation order made. He now appealed from the inclusion in that order of sums of VAT which had already been . .
CitedThe Christian Institute and Others v The Lord Advocate SC 28-Jul-2016
(Scotland) By the 2014 Act, the Scottish Parliament had provided that each child should have a named person to monitor that child’s needs, with information about him or her shared as necessary. The Institute objected that the imposed obligation to . .
CitedMajera, Regina (on The Application of v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 20-Oct-2021
The Court was asked whether the Government (or, indeed, anyone else) can lawfully act in a manner which is inconsistent with an order of a judge which is defective, without first applying for, and obtaining, the variation or setting aside of the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 October 2021; Ref: scu.472943

Case LXIII 1 El Dyer, 169 Patents, Forest Palm 88 2 Buls 290: 1220

The King grants the forest of Waybridge and Sapely in the county of Huntingdon to A for 60 years ; A covenants with the King to maintain 100 deer there during the said term, and at the end thereof to leave the forest so stocked to the King ; the King grants the fee of the forest to B. B. during the term, cannot kill nor give a warrant for any deer there.
[1220] EngR 12, (1220-1623) Jenk 218, (1220) 145 ER 149 (B)
Commonlii
England and Wales

Updated: 20 October 2021; Ref: scu.460924

Lauku Atbalsta Dienests (Aides Au Demarrage D’Entreprises Agricoles) (Common Agricultural Policy – Business Start-Up Aid for Young Farmers – Aid for The Development of Small Farms): ECJ 6 Oct 2021

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Common agricultural policy – European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) funding – National Rural Development Programme 2014-2020 – Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 – Article 19(1)(a) – Business start-up aid for young farmers – Aid for the development of small farms – Cumulation of aid – Possibility to refuse the cumulation
[2021] EUECJ C-119/20, ECLI:EU:C:2021:817
Bailii
European
Citing:
OpinionLauku Atbalsta Dienests (Aides Au Demarrage D’Entreprises Agricoles) (Common Agricultural Policy – Business Start-Up Aid for Young Farmers – Aid for The Development of Small Farms) ECJ 3-Jun-2021
Common agricultural policy (CAP) – Support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) – Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 – Article 19(1)(a) – Business start-up aid – Aid for the development of small farms – Aid . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 October 2021; Ref: scu.668608

J S Bloor (Measham) Ltd v Eric Myles Calcott: ChD 23 Nov 2001

The tenant had claimed a tenancy under the Act. The landlord sought to assert a proprietary estoppel against them. There was nothing in the 1986 Act to stop the claimants relying on a proprietary estoppel and asserting their claims to occupation. The defendant’s tenancy was unenforceable against them.
Mr Justice Hart
Times 12-Dec-2001, Gazette 24-Jan-2002, [2001] EWHC Ch 467, CH1997 J No: 5742
Bailii
Agricultural Holdings Act 1986
Citing:
CitedJohnson v Moreton HL 1980
The tenant had, in the tenancy agreement itself, purported to contract ‘not in any event to serve a counter-notice under Section 24(1)’ of the 1948 Act.
Held: A head tenant under an agricultural tenancy has the right to challenge any notice to . .
CitedKeen v Holland CA 1984
Oliver LJ rejected a submission that, where parties were shown to have a common view about the legal effect of a contract into which they had entered and it was established that one of them would not, to the other’s knowledge, have entered into it . .
CitedSolle v Butcher CA 1949
Fundamental Mistake Needed to Allow Rescission
The court set out the circumstances in which the equitable remedy of rescission of a contract is available for mutual mistake. The mistake has to be as to some fundamental element of the contract. What is ‘fundamental’ is a wider category of event . .
CitedLawrence and Another v Lexcore Holdings Ltd 1978
Effect of a mistake in a document. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 October 2021; Ref: scu.166919

J A Pye and Another v Graham and Another: ChD 14 Mar 2000

The fact alone of being prepared to take a licence of land would not defeat an application for adverse possession, but a request for a licence would be relevant. The adverse possession commenced from the time when the licence expired, given that a sufficient animus was then established. The reference in the section to the taking of action did not apply to an application to warn off the cautions made to the Land Registry which was not a court, and the application was not an application to recover land. Since the Grahams enjoyed factual possession of the land from January 1984, and adverse possession took effect from September 1984, the applicant company’s title was extinguished pursuant to the 1980 Act, and the Grahams were entitled to be registered as proprietors of the land. ‘[The Grahams] sought rights to graze or cut grass on the land after the summer of 1984, and were quite prepared to pay. When Pye failed to respond they did what any other farmer in their position would have done: they continued to farm the land. They were not at fault. But the result of Pye’s inaction was that they enjoyed the full use of the land without payment for 12 years. As if that were not gain enough, they are then rewarded by obtaining title to this considerable area of valuable land without any obligation to compensate the former owner in any way at all. In the case of unregistered land, and in the days before registration became the norm, such a result could no doubt be justified as avoiding protracted uncertainty where the title to land lay. But where land is registered it is difficult to see any justification for a legal rule which compels such an apparently unjust result, and even harder to see why the party gaining title should not be required to pay some compensation at least to the party losing it. It is reassuring to learn that the Land Registration Act 2002 has addressed the risk that a registered owner may lose his title through inadvertence. But the main provisions of that Act have not yet been brought into effect, and even if they had it would not assist Pye, whose title had been lost before the passing of the Act. While I am satisfied that the appeal must be allowed for the reasons given by my noble and learned friend, this is a conclusion which I (like the judge [Neuberger J]…) ‘arrive at with no enthusiasm’.’
Neuberger J
Gazette 17-Feb-2000, Gazette 24-Feb-2000, Times 14-Mar-2000, [2000] Ch 676, [2000] 3 All ER 865
Limitation Act 1980 15(1) 17
England and Wales
Citing:
DistinguishedWalters v Webb 1870
. .
CitedVandeleur v Sloane 1919
. .

Cited by:
Appeal fromJ A Pye (Oxford) Ltd and Another v Caroline Graham and Another CA 6-Feb-2001
Where a tenant under a grazing license had stayed over after the end of the tenancy, and had been refused a renewed licence, and had continued to graze the land for over twelve years, the mere overstaying was not enough to evidence an animus . .
At first instanceJ A Pye (Oxford) Ltd and Others v Graham and Another HL 4-Jul-2002
The claimants sought ownership by adverse possession of land. Once the paper owner had been found, they indicated a readiness to purchase their interest. The court had found that this letter contradicted an animus possidendi. The claimant had . .
At first instanceJ A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Nov-2005
The claimants had been the registered proprietors of land, they lost it through the adverse possession of former tenants holding over. They claimed that the law had dispossessed them of their lawful rights.
Held: The cumulative effect of the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 October 2021; Ref: scu.85085

Manukau Urban Maori Authority and others v Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission and others and Reuben Brian Perenara v Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission and others (New Zealand): PC 2 Jul 2001

(New Zealand) The treaty of settlement between the Maori people and the state operated also as a settlement as between the various Maori peoples. Inherited rights to control fisheries were to be construed so as to benefit the Maori people as a whole. Measures under the Act to help preserve fisheries were challenged by non-traditional Maori groups, claiming that they preferred traditional (Iwi) groups. The statute required consultation with traditional meeting groups which would have the effect of excluding non-traditional Maoris. The words were clear, and gave no discretion to benefit other than Iwi groups.
[2001] UKPC 32
Bailii, PC, PC
Maori Fisheries Act 1989, Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975
England and Wales

Updated: 03 September 2021; Ref: scu.159472

Regina v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food , Ex Parte J H Cooke and Sons: ECJ 12 Oct 2000

Land which in the prior year had been used temporarily for the growth of grass for silage purposes did not lose its eligibility for set-aside payments. The legislation imposed no definition which could justify the interpretation sought by the Ministry. The only land excluded was land set aside permanently for such purposes as pasture or other non-agricultural uses. The test was whether the cultivated with a view to harvest. The United Kingdom could not be excused repayment of fines already levied, since nothing the Commission has done had added to the Ministry’s mistake.
Times 18-Oct-2000, C-372/98, [2000] EUECJ C-372/98
Bailii
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1762/92 with regard to the set-aside scheme
European

Updated: 28 August 2021; Ref: scu.162509

Alexander Littlejohn of Woodstone v Arthur Straton: HL 1 Feb 1759

Salmon Fishing – Right.-
A party’s grant of fishing was described as bounded along the shore between certain points therein described; held that this does not exclude another, whose right is prior, though general in its terms, from acquiring possession of part of the fishings within the points so marked out and described.
[1759] UKHL 2 – Paton – 19
Bailii
Scotland

Updated: 23 August 2021; Ref: scu.558274

Annibaldi v Sindaco del Comune di Guidonia and Presidente Regione Lazio: ECJ 18 Dec 1997

ECJ (Judgment) Agriculture – Nature and archaeological park – Economic activity – Protection of fundamental rights- Lack of jurisdiction of the Court.
C-309/96, [1997] EUECJ C-309/96
Bailii
European
Cited by:
CitedZagorski and Baze, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and Others Admn 29-Nov-2010
The claimants, in the US awaiting execution for murders, challenged the permitting by the defendant for export of the chemical Sodium Thipental which would be used for their execution. The respondent said that its use in general anaesthesia practice . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 August 2021; Ref: scu.161949

Salvesen v Riddell and Another: SCS 15 Mar 2012

Second Division – The court allowed an appeal under section 88(1) of the 2003 Act from a decision of the Scottish Land Court. The section was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court proceeded on the basis that section 72 was enacted as an anti-avoidance measure. But on that basis that it was inappropriate because of its excessive effect and its arbitrary scope. The Lord Justice Clerk said that it was excessive because, if the landlord should fail to obtain an order of the Land Court under section 72(9), the general partner is given a 1991 Act tenancy of the holding, with all the adverse consequences to the landlord that this involves, and the landlord is also exposed to the tenant’s contingent right to buy.
Lord Justice Clerk Gill, Lord Osborne and Lord Nimmo Smith
[2012] ScotCS CSIH – 26, 2012 Hous LR 30, 2012 GWD 12-234, 2013 SC 69, 2012 SCLR 403, 2012 SLT 633
Bailii
Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 2003 88(1), European Convention on Human Rights 1
Scotland
Citing:
At Scottish Land CourtSalvesen v Riddell SLC 29-Jul-2010
SLC Agricultural holdings – limited partnership tenancy – limited partner being agent of landlord – notice of dissolution of partnership validly given – notice given on 3 Feb 2003 – expected change of legislation . .

Cited by:
At Court of SessionSalvesen v Riddell and Another; The Lord Advocate intervening (Scotland) SC 24-Apr-2013
The appellant owned farmland tenanted by a limited partnership. One partner gave notice and the remaining partners indicated a claim for a new tenancy. He was prevented from recovering possession by section 72 of the 2003 Act. Though his claim had . .
At SCSSalvesen v Riddell and Another SCS 6-Jan-2015
The appellant enrolled a motion requesting payment by the Land court of the costs occasioned in a long running legal dispute. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 August 2021; Ref: scu.452231

Langton, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs: Admn 9 Aug 2021

Application for judicial review of the Secretary of State’s policy document ‘Next steps for the strategy for achieving bovine tuberculosis free status for England – The government’s response to the strategy review, 2018’
The Honourable Mr Justice Griffiths
[2021] EWHC 2199 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 11 August 2021; Ref: scu.666524

Taylor v Lancashire County Council and others: CA 17 Mar 2005

The tenant occupied his farm under a lease limiting his use of the farm. He was found to be trading in breach of his covenant and a notice to quit was issued and possession sought. He argued that the 1986 Act was discriminatory and inadequate to protect a farming tenant’s rights and that a declaration of incompatibility under the 1968 Act should be made.
Held: The defendant was not directly affected by the human rights infringement he asserted, but hoped to benefit by a declaration of incompatibility, which would have the effect of protecting him also. A declaration should not be granted in that situation. The notion of victim under the 1998 Act was broad, but still he was not a victim as such under s7(1) of the 1998 Act, and did not have the standing to seek a declaration. It was not the function of the courts to keep the statute books up to date. The grant of a declaration was discretionary, and it was doubtful that the court’s discretion should be exercised in this way.
Lord Woolf CJ spoke of the admissibility of statements made by officials explaining legislation: ‘. . . in so far, as it recounts history which cannot be extracted from the successive Acts, it is relevant and helpful. Such history may properly include issues which had come to the attention of the department of state sponsoring the legislation, for example through correspondence with a representative body’.
Lord Woolf LCJ, Sedley LJ, Gage J
[2005] EWCA Civ 284, Times 05-Apr-1931, [2005] 1 WLR 2668
Bailii
Agricultural Holdings Act 1986, Human Rights Act 1968 4(2) 7(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Her Majesty’s Attorney General ex parte Rusbridger and Another HL 26-Jun-2003
Limit to Declaratory Refilef as to Future Acts
The applicant newspaper editor wanted to campaign for a republican government. Articles were published, and he sought confirmation that he would not be prosecuted under the Act, in the light of the 1998 Act.
Held: Declaratory relief as to the . .

Cited by:
CitedTangney v The Governor of HMP Elmley and Another CA 29-Jul-2005
The claimant was a serving a life sentence. During prison disciplinary proceedings he was refused legal and other assistance, and an outside tribunal on the basis that since any finding would not lead to any loss of remission or extra time, his . .
CitedBaiai and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 10-Apr-2006
The respondent brought in laws restricting marriages between persons subject to immigration control, requiring those seeking non Church of England marriages to first obtain a certificate from the defendant that the marriage was approved. The . .
CitedSecretary of State for the Home Department v JN CA 14-May-2008
The Secretary of State appealed against a declaration that paragraph 3(2)(b) of Part 2 of Schedule 3 to the 2004 Act was incompatible with Article 3. The clause was said to restrict the Home Secretary from considering anything beyond the country . .
CitedHuman Rights Commission for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland : Abortion) SC 7-Jun-2018
The Commission challenged the compatibility of the NI law relating to banning nearly all abortions with Human Rights Law. It now challenged a decision that it did not have standing to bring the case.
Held: (Lady Hale, Lord Kerr and Lord Wilson . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 July 2021; Ref: scu.223632

Hungary v Commission: ECFI 1 Jun 2016

ECJ (Judgment (Extracts)) Common agricultural policy – Direct payments – Additional criteria for ecological focus area with short rotation coppice – Article 45(8) of the Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 – Article 46(9)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 – Misuse of power – Legal certainty – Non-discrimination – Legitimate expectations – Right to property – Obligation to state reasons
T-662/14, [2016] EUECJ T-662/14
Bailii
Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 46(9)(a)
European

Updated: 23 July 2021; Ref: scu.564913

Commission v France: ECJ 25 Apr 2002

Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Community system for the conservation and management of fishery resources – Inspection of fishing vessels and monitoring of catches (Article 5(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 170/83, Article 1(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87, Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 3760/92 and Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93) – Late suspension of fishing (Article 11(1) and (2) of Regulation No 2241/87 and Article 21(1) and (2) of Regulation No 2847/93) – Absence of penal or administrative action against those responsible for exceeding quotas (Article 1(2) of Regulation No 2241/87 and Article 31 of Regulation No 2847/93)
[2002] EUECJ C-418/00
Bailii
European

Updated: 22 July 2021; Ref: scu.170263

Poland v Commission (Agriculture and Fisheries – Judgment): ECFI 17 Dec 2019

EAGF and EAFRD – Expenditure excluded from funding – Fruit and vegetable sectors – Aid to producer groups – Expenditure incurred by Poland – Deficiencies in key and secondary controls – Verification of recognition plans and recognition criteria – Controls relating to aid applications – Eligibility of producer groups – Economic coherence – Necessity and eligibility of investments – Reasonableness of expenditure – Systemic failures – Risk for the EAGF – Corrective measures – Flat rate corrections of 25%
T-21/18, [2019] EUECJ T-21/18
Bailii
European

Updated: 21 July 2021; Ref: scu.665511

Italy v Commission: ECFI 5 Feb 2015

ECJ (Judgment) EAGGF – Guarantee Section – EAGF and EAFRD – Expenditure excluded from financing – Fruit and vegetables – Processing Sector tomatoes – Aid to producer organizations – Expenditure incurred by Italy – Article 7, paragraph 4 of Regulation ( EC) No 1258/1999 – Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 – Flat-rate correction ‘
[2015] EUECJ T-387/12, , ECLI: EU: T: 2015: 71
Bailii
Regulation ( EC) No 1258/1999
European

Updated: 15 July 2021; Ref: scu.542289

Saint Louis Sucre v Directeur general des douanes et droits indirects: ECJ 16 Jun 2016

(Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Agriculture – Sugar – Production levies – Right to reimbursement – Sugar held in stock and not exported – Undue enrichment – Freedom to conduct a business – Method of calculation
C-96/15, [2016] EUECJ C-96/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:450
Bailii
European

Updated: 14 July 2021; Ref: scu.565633

Agrargenossenschaft Neuzelle Eg v Landrat Des Landkreises Oder-Spree: ECJ 14 Mar 2013

ECJ Common agricultural policy – Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 – Article 7(1) and (2) – Modulation of direct payments granted to farmers – Further reduction in the amount of direct payments – Validity – Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations – Principle of non-discrimination
L Bay Larsen, P
C-545/11, [2013] EUECJ C-545/11, ECLI:EU:C:2013:169
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 7(1)
European

Updated: 09 July 2021; Ref: scu.471898

Inland Revenue v Graham’s Trustees: HL 1971

The House was asked as to the valuation of a farm. That turned in part on estate duty legislation and in part on whether, on the death of a partner, the surviving partners were entitled to take up the firm’s secure agricultural tenancy.
Held: The interlocutors be affirmed. When a partnership is dissolved, no former partner may claim a tenancy held by it. Any new partnership was a separate legal person from the former partnership. For there to be delectus personae, there has to be a natural person.
Lord Reid, Lord Guest, Lord Hunter, Lord Upjohn
1971 SC (HL) 1
Scotland
Cited by:
CitedSalvesen v Riddell and Another; The Lord Advocate intervening (Scotland) SC 24-Apr-2013
The appellant owned farmland tenanted by a limited partnership. One partner gave notice and the remaining partners indicated a claim for a new tenancy. He was prevented from recovering possession by section 72 of the 2003 Act. Though his claim had . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 June 2021; Ref: scu.514223

Windsor-Clive and Others v Rees and Another: ChD 18 Apr 2019

Claim for injunction to prevent interference with certain claimed rights over land.
Held: Some of the activities that the landlord proposed to carry out were permitted under the terms of the tenancy agreements; but others were not.
Keyser QC HHJ
[2019] EWHC 1008 (Ch), [2019] 4 WLR 74, [2019] WLR(D) 270
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRainy Sky Sa and Others v Kookmin Bank SC 2-Nov-2011
Commercial Sense Used to Interpret Contract
The Court was asked as to the role of commercial good sense in the construction of a term in a contract which was open to alternative interpretations.
Held: The appeal succeeded. In such a case the court should adopt the more, rather than the . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromRees and Another v Windsor-Clive and Others CA 1-Jul-2020
Reservation Derogation construed normally
Construction of tenancy agreement – correct approach to reservations made in favour of the landlord. The landlord required access to the tenanted farm to allow survey work anticipating development of his adjoining land. The tenant now appealed . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 June 2021; Ref: scu.636141

Etablissement National Des Produits De L’Agriculture Et De La Mer v Vinifrance Sa: ECJ 13 Dec 2012

ECJ Protection of the European Union’s financial interests – Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 – Articles 4 and 5 – Administrative penalty – Administrative measure – Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 – Aid for the private storage of concentrated grape must – Community origin – Regulation (EEC) No 1059/83 – Long-term storage contract – Article 2(2) – Article 17(1)(b) – Reduction of the amount of aid in relation to the seriousness of the breach committed
L Bay Larsen, acting P
C-670/11, [2012] EUECJ C-670/11
Bailii
Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95, Regulation (EEC) No 822/87, Regulation (EEC) No 1059/83
European

Updated: 21 May 2021; Ref: scu.468765

Partridge Farms Ltd, Regina (On the Application of) v Secretary Of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: CA 1 Apr 2009

Appeal by the Secretary of State from an order declaring that the Cattle Compensation (England) Order 2006 (SI 2006/168) breached the principle of equality in European Community law, because in setting compensation for cattle slaughtered on account of cattle tuberculosis (bovine TB) it did not make proper provision for pedigree cattle of especially high value.
Lord Justice Lawrence Collins
[2009] EWCA Civ 284, [2009] NPC 58, [2009] Eu LR 816
Bailii
Cattle Compensation (England) Order 2006
England and Wales

Updated: 20 May 2021; Ref: scu.328889

Alexander v Tonkin: 1979

The court discussed the meaning of the word ‘fishing’.
[1979] 1 WLR 629
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedSouth Wales Sea Fisheries Committee v Saunders Admn 27-Nov-2003
The defendant trawlerman was seen with his nets in the water within the six mile limit, and he faced a prosecution. He replied that the only acts undertaken within the limit had been acts of maintenance of his nets.
Held: In the breaking open . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 May 2021; Ref: scu.188624

Kelsall and Others, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: Admn 13 Mar 2003

The claimants had had their fur farming business closed under the 2000 Act. They now challanged the order implementing compensation for the loss.
Stanley Burnton J
[2003] EWHC 459 (Admin)
Bailii
Fur Farming (Compensation Scheme) (England) Order 2002, Fur Farming Prohibition Act 2000
England and Wales

Updated: 16 May 2021; Ref: scu.263503

Shirley v Crabtree: Admn 27 Jun 2007

The tenant claimed to have become a tenant under the provisions allowing for a succession to the agricultural tenancy. The landlord said that she failed to meet the livelihood conditions.
Held: The requirement to satisfy the condition applied at the time of the giving of the notice requirement, and once met, did not need to be satisfied again at the date of the tribunal hearing.
Beatson J
Times 31-Jul-2007, [2007] EWHC 1532 (Admin), [2008] 1 WLR 18, [2008] WTLR 133
Bailii
Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 50
England and Wales

Updated: 14 May 2021; Ref: scu.254345