The claimants were mink farmers. They challenged the order arranging compensation for the closure of their businesses following the ban on fur farming.
Held: The provisions of the order were arbitrary and unfair, failing to take into account different values of premium brands. The Order was to be quashed.
Judges:
Stanley Burton J
Citations:
Times 27-Mar-2003, [2003] EWHC 656 (Admin)
Links:
Statutes:
Fur Farming Prohibition Act 2000, Fur Farming (Compensation Scheme) (England) Order 2002 (2002 No 221)
Cited by:
Cited – Tate and Lyle Sugars Ltd v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and Another CA 3-Jun-2011
The company had developed a means of generating electricity from their excess sugar supplies, and challenged the support given to it by the respondent and in particular that the 2009 Order allowed the respondent to favour some types of energy . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Agriculture
Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.180101