The claimants sought to re-open their appeal saying that the respondent department had failed properly to describe the workings of the clawback scheme under which its claim had been made.
Held: A DEFRA official had provided materially incorrect information to the court in a witness statement. The judgment should be set aside.
Judges:
Mr Justice Moses Lord Justice Dyson Lady Justice Smith
Citations:
[2006] EWCA Civ 699
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Feakins v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Admn 20-Dec-2002
. .
Now set aside – Regina on the Application of Feakins v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs CA 4-Nov-2003
The applicant farmer had substantial volumes of potentially contaminated carcasses on his land. The respondent derogated from the European regulations which would have arranged for the disposal of the carcasses. The respondent challenged the . .
See Also – Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs v Feakins and Another CA 6-Apr-2006
. .
Cited by:
Cited – Bancoult, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) SC 29-Jun-2016
Undisclosed Matter inadequate to revisit decision
The claimant sought to have set aside a decision of the House of Lords as to the validity of the 2004 Order, saying that it had been based on a failure by the defendant properly to disclose matters it was under a duty of candour to disclose.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Agriculture, Administrative
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.242360