Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Agriculture - From: 2000 To: 2000

This page lists 17 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.


 
 Barrett and others v Morgan; HL 27-Jan-2000 - Times, 28 January 2000; Gazette, 10 February 2000; [2000] 2 WLR 285; [2000] UKHL 1; [2000] 2 AC 264; [2000] 1 All ER 481
 
J A Pye and Another v Graham and Another Gazette, 17 February 2000; Gazette, 24 February 2000; Times, 14 March 2000; [2000] Ch 676; [2000] 3 All ER 865
14 Mar 2000
ChD
Neuberger J
Agriculture, Land, Limitation
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'.”
Limitation Act 1980 15(1) 17
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Tempest (t/a Cesspool Sid) v Commissioners of Customs and Excise; ChD 16-Mar-2000 - Times, 16 March 2000
 
Association Greenpeace France and Others v Ministere de l'Agriculture et de la Peche and Others C-6/99; [2000] EUECJ C-6/99
21 Mar 2000
ECJ

European, Agriculture
ECJ 1. Directive 90/220 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms, as amended by Directive 97/35, is to be interpreted as meaning that, if, after an application for placing a GMO on the market has been forwarded to the Commission, no Member State has raised an objection, in accordance with Article 13(2) of that directive, or if the Commission has taken a favourable decision under paragraph (4) of that provision, the competent authority which forwarded the application, with a favourable opinion, to the Commission must issue the consent in writing, allowing the product to be placed on the market. However, if in the meantime the Member State concerned has new information which leads it to consider that the product for which notification has been received may constitute a risk to human health and the environment, it will not be obliged to give its consent, provided that it immediately informs the Commission and the other Member States about the new information in order that, within the period laid down in Article 16(2) of Directive 90/220, a decision may be taken in the matter in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 21 of that directive.
2. Where the national court finds that, owing to irregularities in the conduct of the examination of the notification by the competent national authority provided for in Article 12(1) of Directive 90/220 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms, as amended by Directive 97/35, it was not proper for that authority to forward the dossier with a favourable opinion to the Commission as provided for in paragraph (2) of that provision, that court must refer the matter to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling if it considers that those irregularities are such as to affect the validity of the Commission's favourable decision, if necessary ordering the suspension of application of the measures for implementing that decision until the Court of Justice has ruled on the question of validity.
[ Bailii ]
 
Floyer-Acland and others v Osmond [2000] EWCA Civ 110
6 Apr 2000
CA
Morritt, Schiemann LJJ
Landlord and Tenant, Agriculture

[ Bailii ]
 
Elliott v Agrevo UK Ltd [2000] EWHC Technology 118
7 Apr 2000
TCC

Nuisance, Agriculture
The claimant sought damages in nuisance, saying that his produce was adversely affected the by the escape of herbicides from the defendant's neighbouring farm.
[ Bailii ]

 
 Gascogne Limousin viandes SA v Office National Interprofessionnel des Viandes de l'Elevage et de l'Aviculture; ECJ 11-May-2000 - C-56/99; [2000] EUECJ C-56/99

 
 Bracken v East Hertfordshire District Council; QBD 11-May-2000 - Gazette, 11 May 2000
 
Regina v Minister for Agriculture Fisheries and Foods and Secretary of State for Wales ex parte Mott [2000] EWHC Admin 339
12 May 2000
Admn

Agriculture

National Salmon Byelaws 1999
[ Bailii ]
 
Hawkins v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and Another Gazette, 25 May 2000
25 May 2000
QBD

Planning, Agriculture
The applicant sought permission to continue to use a dwelling in breach of an agricultural occupation restriction. There was no evidence that the property had no realistic prospect of sale subject to the condition, and the inspector found that the restriction had not outlived its usefulness. The inspector was entitled to make a judgment as to the prospects of sale and had not taken into account irrelevant matters.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 288

 
Quentin Mayne and Chitty Wholesale Ltd v Ministry of Agriculture ,Fisheries and Food [2000] EWHC Admin 368
13 Jul 2000
Admn

Agriculture

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Daventry District Council ex parte Thornby Farms Times, 05 October 2000; Gazette, 14 September 2000; [2000] EWHC Admin 382
28 Jul 2000
Admn
Lord Justice Pill, Lord Justice Robert Walker, And Mr Justice Laddie
Animals, Agriculture, Environment, European
The council granted licences for the disposal of waste animal carcasses by incineration. The objectors said the council had failed to take note of art 4 of the directive, and that as clinical waste alternative regimes applied. Held: Animal waste and clinical waste were properly distinguished, and the council had applied the correct guidance. The council was entitled to assume on the evidence that no way of preventing the emissions was available. The requirements of the legislation should have been read to impose a continuing obligation to assess not just the machinery used, but also additional available steps to reduce emissions to a minimum. Nevertheless the decision stood. In the second case, there was no obligation to refuse planning permissions either because there is no immediate need for the land or because the relevant decision makes no positive contribution towards meeting the objective. Appeals refused.
Hazardous Waste Directive 91/689/EEC - Controlled Waste Regulations 1992 - Environmental Protection Act 1990 - Council Directive 75/442/EEC, as amended by 91/156/EEC and 96/350/EEC Waste Framework Directive. Article 4 - Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994 (1994/1056) - Animal Waste Directive (90/425/EEC) - Air Pollution Directive (84/360/EEC) - Animal By-products Order 1992 (SI 1992 No 3303)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Mayne and Another v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Times, 12 October 2000; Gazette, 03 August 2000; [2001] EHLR 5
3 Aug 2000
QBD
Kennedy LJ and Jackson
Administrative, Crime, European, Agriculture
The defendants exported beef without the requisite certificates. The UK rules had been made before a Directive came into effect. On appeal after conviction the defendant argued that the rules purported to take account of future amendments. It was held that for a criminal sanction to be applicable, Regulations could not give effect to directives made by a third party without appropriate and explicit incorporation of those amendments. A regulation imposing sanctions for failure to comply with an EC Directive is not to be read as applying to future amendments to the Directive unless the wording of the regulations is such as clearly to take account of the possibility of future amendments.
1 Citers



 
 Knapdale (Nominees) Ltd v Donald and Another; OHCS 22-Aug-2000 - Times, 22 August 2000
 
Regina v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food , Ex Parte J H Cooke and Sons Times, 18 October 2000; C-372/98; [2000] EUECJ C-372/98
12 Oct 2000
ECJ

Agriculture, European
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.
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1762/92 with regard to the set-aside scheme
[ Bailii ]
 
Pickles v Greenbank Times, 07 November 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 264
20 Oct 2000
CA

Agriculture, Landlord and Tenant
Where a tenancy had to be valued following a dissolution of the partnership to whom the tenancy had been granted and assignment by consent to one of the former partners, the valuation was to be as on a sale on the open market. A proper assessment had to be made of the evidence as at the date of assignment, and the judge could take a realistic view of what would be the intentions of both landlord and tenant toward the tenancy, and how those intentions might affect the open market valuation. The value was not the amount the tenant would have been prepared to accept for the tenancy, but how much he would have been prepared to offer to buy it.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Emsland-Starke GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas C-110/99; [2000] ECR I-11569; [2000] EUECJ C-110/99
14 Dec 2000
ECJ
G.C. Rodriguez Iglesias, P
European, VAT, Agriculture
ECJ Articles 9(1), 10(1) and 20(2) to (6) of Regulation No 2730/79 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, in the version resulting from Regulation No 568/85, must be interpreted as meaning that a Community exporter can forfeit his right to payment of a non-differentiated export refund if (a) the product in respect of which the export refund was paid, and which is sold to a purchaser established in a non-member country, is, immediately after its release for home use in that non-member country, transported back to the Community under the external Community transit procedure and is there released for home use on payment of import duties, without any infringement being established and (b) that operation constitutes an abuse on the part of that Community exporter. A finding that there is an abuse presupposes an intention on the part of the Community exporter to benefit from an advantage as a result of the application of the Community rules by artificially creating the conditions for obtaining it. Evidence of this must be placed before the national court in accordance with the rules of national law, for instance by establishing that there was collusion between that exporter and the importer of the goods into the non-member country. The fact that, before being re-imported into the Community, the product was sold by the purchaser established in the non-member country concerned to an undertaking also established in that country with which he has personal and commercial links is one of the facts which can be taken into account by the national court when ascertaining whether the conditions giving rise to an obligation to repay refunds are fulfilled.
The exporter was refused a rebate of duty to which he was entitled on the face of the relevant Commission Regulation upon the export of his goods, because he had abused the law by claiming it in respect of goods which had been exported to a third country only to be at once re-imported into the country of origin. The court held at para 59 that:
"a finding that there has been an abuse presupposes an intention on the part of the Community exporter to benefit from an advantage as a result of the application of the Community rules by artificially creating the conditions for obtaining it."
The essential reason why the trading scheme failed was that the choice of a circular supply route did not involve a choice between different methods of achieving the trader's commercial purpose. It had no commercial purpose other than the avoidance of tax.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.