The applicants were farmers. Their cattle were destroyed after contracting foot and mouth disease. Their land was used for the burning of the carcasses of their animals, and of animals from neighbouring farms. They were compensated inter alia for the use of their land for burning the carcasses of their neighbours, but not their own animals.
Held: The Act did not contain a clear express power to compel the use of land for burning, but one was properly inferred. There was no obligation to pay compensation for the use of the claimants’ land for the burning of their own animal carcasses.
Judges:
Judge Jack Beatson, QC
Citations:
Times 22-Apr-2002, [2002] EWHC 831 Admin
Statutes:
Animal Health Act 1981 31 34(2) Sch 3
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council, ex parte McCarthy and Stone (Developments) Ltd HL 14-Nov-1991
A Local Authority was not able to impose charge for inquiries as to speculative developments and similar proposals, or for consultations, and pre-planning advice. There was no statutory authority for such a charge, and it was therefore unlawful and . .
Cited by:
Cited – Feakins and Another v Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Civ 1513) CA 9-Dec-2005
The department complained that the defendants had entered into a transaction with their farm at an undervalue so as to defeat its claim for recovery of sums due. The transaction used the grant of a tenancy by the first chargee.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Agriculture, Damages
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.170067
