Regina v Secretary of State for Health ex parte Eastside Cheese Company (a Firm) and R A Duckett and Co Interested: CA 1 Jul 1999

The respondent had made an order banning the processing of milk products from the interested party’s farm into cheese products. Cheese manufacturers objected to the order. The order had been held unlawful, and the Secretary of State now appealed.
Held: Proportionality itself is not always equated with intense scrutiny

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill LCJ, Otton, Robert Walker LJJ

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 1739, (2000) 2 LGLR 41, [1999] COD 321, [1999] 3 CMLR 123, (2000) 55 BMLR 38, [1999] EuLR 968, [2000] EHLR 52

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Food Safety Act 1990 13

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromRegina v Secretary of State for Health, ex parte Eastside Cheese Company QBD 1-Dec-1998
An order made by the Secretary of State for a cheese manufacturer to cease production and to seize product without compensation as an emergency was disproportionate where the local officers had adequate power under section 9 under which compensation . .
See AlsoRegina v Secretary of State for Health ex parte Eastside Cheese Company (a Firm) and R A Duckett and Co Interested CA 1-Jul-1999
Application for leave to appeal to House of Lords – refused. However ‘on public health issues which require the evaluation of complex scientific evidence, the national court may and should be slow to interfere with a decision which a responsible . .

Cited by:

See AlsoRegina v Secretary of State for Health ex parte Eastside Cheese Company (a Firm) and R A Duckett and Co Interested CA 1-Jul-1999
Application for leave to appeal to House of Lords – refused. However ‘on public health issues which require the evaluation of complex scientific evidence, the national court may and should be slow to interfere with a decision which a responsible . .
CitedBritish American Tobacco UK Ltd and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Health Admn 5-Nov-2004
The claimants challenged the validity of regulations restricting cigarette advertisements, saying that greater exceptions should have been allowed, and that the regulations infringed their commercial right of free speech.
Held: The Regulations . .
CitedKennedy v The Charity Commission SC 26-Mar-2014
The claimant journalist sought disclosure of papers acquired by the respondent in its conduct of enquiries into the charitable Mariam appeal. The Commission referred to an absolute exemption under section 32(2) of the 2000 Act, saying that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Consumer, Administrative

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.146654