Mirvahedy v Henley and another: HL 20 Mar 2003

The defendants’ horses escaped from the field, and were involved in an accident with the claimant’s car.
Held: The defendants were liable under section 2(2). To bolt was a characteristic of horses which was normal ‘in the particular circumstances’, these being some sort of fright or other external stimulus. Section 2 places all animals into one of two categories by their species. Animals either belong to a dangerous species, or they do not. A keeper of an animal is liable for damage caused by his animal dependant upon the category. A dangerous species must meet two requirements, a) that it is not commonly domesticated here and b) that fully grown animals ‘normally have such characteristics that they are likely, unless restrained, to cause severe damage or that any damage they may cause is likely to be severe’.
Lord Nicholls: ‘Take a large and heavy domestic animal such as a mature cow. There is a real risk that if a cow happens to stumble and fall onto someone, any damage suffered will be severe. This would satisfy requirement (a). . . But a cow’s dangerousness in this regard may not fall within requirement (b). This dangerousness is due to a characteristic normally found in all cows at all times. The dangerousness results from their very size and weight. It is not due to a characteristic not normally found in cows ‘except at particular times or in particular circumstances.”

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Nicholls
Times 24-Mar-2003, [2003] UKHL 16, Gazette 15-May-2003, [2003] 2 AC 491, [2003] RTR 26, [2003] PIQR P25, [2003] NPC 38, [2003] 2 WLR 882, [2003] 2 All ER 401
House of Lords, Bailii
Animals Act 1971 2 6(2) 11
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromMirvahedy v Henley and Henley CA 21-Nov-2001
Horses with no abnormal characteristics were panicked, ran out and collided with a car. The car driver sought damages.
Held: The question was not whether the animals betrayed abnormal characteristics of which the owners should have been aware, . .
CitedBreeden v Lampard CA 21-Mar-1985
A riding accident occurred at a cubbing meet. The plaintiff’s leg was injured when the defendant’s horse kicked out. A claim was advanced under section 2. This horse, like any horse, was liable to kick out when approached too closely, or too . .
CitedCummings v Grainger CA 1977
An untrained Alsatian dog was turned loose in a scrap-yard to deter intruders. The dog seriously injured the plaintiff who had entered the yard.
Held: The requirements of section 2(2) were satisfied but the defendant was entitled to rely upon . .

Cited by:
CitedClark v Bowlt CA 26-Jun-2006
A claim was made for personal injury suffered riding a horse.
Held: The court doubted whether a propensity occasionally to move otherwise than as directed can be described as a characteristic of a horse, for the purposes of s. 2(2)(b), but, if . .
CitedWelsh v Stokes and Another CA 27-Jul-2007
The claimant sued a riding stables after she was badly injured on being thrown from the horse provided. Her claim in negligence failed, but she succeeded under strict liabiilty under the 1971 Act, after the judge relied upon hearsay evidence.
CitedFreeman v Higher Park Farm CA 30-Oct-2008
The claimant fell from a horse hired to her by the defendant. She claimed for her injuries, and appealed rejection of her claim in strict liability under the 1971 Act. The horse was known to be lively and occasionally to buck, but the claimant was a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals, Road Traffic, Personal Injury

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.179981

Cresswell v Sirl: CA 1948

The defendant shot and killed the plaintiff’s dog. The plaintiff claimed damages for trespass to property, the property being the dog. The defence was that the defendant was justified in killing the dog because it was threatening his sheep.
Held: The principle enunciated in Cope was of general application to all justifications for all acts of trespass.

Scott LJ
[1948] 1 KB 241
Citing:
ExplainedCope v Sharpe (No 2) CA 1912
The court considered defences to assault; whether the defendant was justified in doing certain acts of trespass on the plaintiff’s land for the purpose of preventing heath fire and consequent loss and damage to the property of the defendant’s . .

Cited by:
CitedAshley and Another v Sussex Police CA 27-Jul-2006
The deceased was shot by police officers raiding his flat in 1998. The claimants sought damages for his estate. They had succeeded in claiming damages for false imprisonment, but now appealed dismissal of their claim for damages for assault and . .
CitedAshley and Another v Chief Constable of Sussex Police HL 23-Apr-2008
The claimants sought to bring an action for damages after a family member suspected of dealing drugs, was shot by the police. At the time he was naked. The police officer had been acquitted by a criminal court of murder. The chief constable now . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Animals

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.244748

Partridge v Crittenden: QBD 1968

The defendant advertised for sale ‘Bramblefinch cocks, Bramblefinch hens, 25s each’. It would be an offence unlawfully to offer a wild live bird for sale.
Held: The advert was an invitation to treat, not an offer for sale, and he was not guilty.

[1968] 2 All ER 421, [1968] 1 WLR 1204
Protection of Birds Act 1954 6(1) Sch 4
England and Wales

Contract, Animals, Crime

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.252547

Lamont-Perkins v Royal Society for The Prevention of Cruelty To Animals (RSPCA): Admn 24 Apr 2012

The defendant had been convicted of animal cruelty. She appealed to the Crown Court, and now appealed against rulings made by the judge as to the time limits for a prosecution under the 2006 Act in the Magistrates Court. She said that the RSPCA conducting a private prosecution was not a ‘prosecutor’ able to take the benefit of section 31 of the 2006 Act. She argued that the power under section 31 of the 2006 Act to certify conclusively for the purposes of limitation when matters came to the prosecutor’s knowledge was a power that was restricted to state prosecutors and not to private prosecutors.
Held: After a review of the provisions of the Act, the power was a power available to all prosecutors.
The phrase ‘the prosecutor’ in section 31 of the 2006 Act is not limited to prosecutors who prosecute pursuant to a power conferred by some statutory provision but applies to anyone who initiates a prosecution under the Act. The absence of a remedy by way of judicial review against a private prosecutor was not a basis to conclude that section 31 was to be interpreted so as to exclude private prosecutors from its ambit. The magistrates’ court in which a prosecution is brought can investigate whether or not the proceedings have been brought within the time limit specified in section 31 of the Act and it can also investigate whether any certificate issued under section 31(2) should be treated as conclusive of the facts stated therein. Once an appropriate procedure exists for contending that the prosecutor has not brought proceedings within time or that the certificate issued under section 31(2) should not be treated as conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein the absence of a remedy by way of judicial review loses much of its significance.

Sir John Thomas P
[2012] EWHC 1002 (Admin)
Bailii
Animal Welfare Act 2006 4 31, Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 127(10
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedKerr v John Mottram Ltd ChD 1940
The court considered an application by a shareholder of a company to enforce an alleged contract for the sale of shares that he claimed were offered to him at a meeting of the company. The minutes of the company meeting did not support the . .
CitedRegina v Haringey Magistrates’ Court ex parte Amvrosiou Admn 13-Jun-1996
When the appellant appeared at the Magistrates’ Court to answer a charge of driving whilst uninsured, a preliminary point was taken on her behalf that the prosecution had not been commenced within 6 months of the date on which evidence sufficient in . .
CitedTerra Woningen BV v The Netherlands ECHR 17-Dec-1996
A court had considered itself bound by a decision of the Provincial Executive within the Netherlands adverse to the applicant company.
Held: That was in breach of article 6(1). There was not access to a tribunal with sufficient jurisdiction to . .
CitedMorgans v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 29-Dec-1998
The defendant argued that once the prosecutor had all the material on which the prosecution was eventually brought, then for the purposes of section 11(2) time began to run.
Held: When considering the time limits for a prosecution under the . .
CitedMorgans v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 18-Feb-2000
Without a warrant, the police had arranged for a call logger to retain details of the calls made, including the number called, time and duration. The dialing itself was a communication, which established a connection, through which further . .
CitedBurwell v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 1-May-2009
The defendant appealed against the decision of the Magistrates to accept a prosecutor’s certificate as to compliance with time limits for commencing the prosecution. He argued that the police had all the evidence in their possession at an earlier . .

Cited by:
AppliedBrowning v Lewes Crown Court and RSPCA Admn 24-Apr-2012
The claimant appealed against the refusal by the respondent to state a case regarding its conviction of the claimant of offences under the 2006 Act.
Held: In view of the case of Perkins, the application failed save that the Crown Court should . .
CitedVirgin Media Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Zinga CACD 24-Jan-2014
Zinga had been convicted of conspiracy to defraud in a private prosecution brought by Virgin Media. After dismissal of the appeal against conviction, Virgin pursued confiscation proceedings. Zinga appealed against refusal of its argument that it was . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals, Magistrates, Criminal Practice

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.452904

Interboves GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Agriculture): ECJ 9 Oct 2008

ECJ Directive 91/628/EEC Export refunds Protection of animals during transport – Transport of bovine animals by sea between two geographical points of the Community – Vehicle loaded onto a vessel without unloading the animals 12 hour rest period Obligation.

C-277/06, [2008] EUECJ C-277/06
Bailii
European

Animals

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.276794

Clark v Bowlt: CA 26 Jun 2006

A claim was made for personal injury suffered riding a horse.
Held: The court doubted whether a propensity occasionally to move otherwise than as directed can be described as a characteristic of a horse, for the purposes of s. 2(2)(b), but, if it can, the trial judge had failed to identify either the particular times of the particular circumstances when this characteristic manifested itself,

Lord Phillips MR
[2006] EWCA Civ 978
Bailii
Animals Act 1971 2
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedMirvahedy v Henley and another HL 20-Mar-2003
The defendants’ horses escaped from the field, and were involved in an accident with the claimant’s car.
Held: The defendants were liable under section 2(2). To bolt was a characteristic of horses which was normal ‘in the particular . .

Cited by:
CitedFreeman v Higher Park Farm CA 30-Oct-2008
The claimant fell from a horse hired to her by the defendant. She claimed for her injuries, and appealed rejection of her claim in strict liability under the 1971 Act. The horse was known to be lively and occasionally to buck, but the claimant was a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals, Negligence

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.243293

Cummings v Grainger: CA 1977

An untrained Alsatian dog was turned loose in a scrap-yard to deter intruders. The dog seriously injured the plaintiff who had entered the yard.
Held: The requirements of section 2(2) were satisfied but the defendant was entitled to rely upon the trespasser defence provided by section 5. The dog had characteristics not normally found in Alsatian dogs except in circumstances where they are used as guard dogs. These were ‘particular circumstances’ within section 2(2)(b). Such an animal is behaving dangerously but it is doing so in a manner characteristic of its species in the circumstances.
Lord Denning MR: ‘This is a case of a barmaid who was badly bitten by a big dog’

Lord Denning MR, Ormrod and Bridge LJJ
[1977] QB 397
Animals Act 1971 2 5
England and Wales
Cited by:
ApprovedMirvahedy v Henley and Henley CA 21-Nov-2001
Horses with no abnormal characteristics were panicked, ran out and collided with a car. The car driver sought damages.
Held: The question was not whether the animals betrayed abnormal characteristics of which the owners should have been aware, . .
CitedMirvahedy v Henley and another HL 20-Mar-2003
The defendants’ horses escaped from the field, and were involved in an accident with the claimant’s car.
Held: The defendants were liable under section 2(2). To bolt was a characteristic of horses which was normal ‘in the particular . .
Dictum appliedCurtis v Betts CA 1990
The defendant owned a bull mastiff dog. It was known to react fiercely when protecting its territory. The plaintiff, a child, had known the dog since it was a puppy, and approached as the dog was about to be put into a car. The dog bit his face . .
CitedWelsh v Stokes and Another CA 27-Jul-2007
The claimant sued a riding stables after she was badly injured on being thrown from the horse provided. Her claim in negligence failed, but she succeeded under strict liabiilty under the 1971 Act, after the judge relied upon hearsay evidence.
CitedFreeman v Higher Park Farm CA 30-Oct-2008
The claimant fell from a horse hired to her by the defendant. She claimed for her injuries, and appealed rejection of her claim in strict liability under the 1971 Act. The horse was known to be lively and occasionally to buck, but the claimant was a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals, Personal Injury

Leading Case

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.180024

Regina v Bezzina, Regina v Codling, Regina v Elvin: CACD 7 Dec 1993

The offence under section 3(1), requiring the owner to keep a dangerous dog under control, is one of strict liability. The court noted the difference in wording between the sections.
Kennedy LJ said: ‘Accordingly, we come to the conclusion that the terms of the statute in section 3(1) do have to be read in the way that we indicated at the start of this judgment. In other words, when one encounters the words in section 3(1) — ‘dangerously out of control’ — one applies the meaning which is set out in section 10(3) and that means, in effect, that if a dog is in a public place, if the person accused is shown to be the owner of the dog, if the dog is dangerously out of control in the sense that the dog is shown to be acting in a way that gives grounds for reasonable apprehension that it would injure anyone, liability follows. Of course, if injury does result then, on the face of it, there must have been, immediately before the injury resulted, grounds for reasonable apprehension that injury would occur.’
Kennedy LJ
Gazette 02-Feb-1994, Times 07-Dec-1993, [1994] 1 WLR 1057
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 3(1) 3(2)(3)
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedCriminal Injuries Compensation Authority v First-Tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) CA 3-Feb-2014
cica_fttCA0114
The claimant had been riding his cycle. A dog, known to be aggressive, chased him, he swerved ino the path of a car and was severely injured. His claim was rejected by the appellant saying that no crime of violence had been involved. CICA now . .
CitedRafiq v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 1997
The court heard an appeal from conviction of an offence under section 3.
Held: The court referred to Bezzina.
Popplewell J dissented from the approach in Bezzina, saying: ‘It seems to me that in order to impose some logic in this case the . .
CitedGedminintaite, Regina v CACD 15-Feb-2008
Application for leave to appeal against a ruling given by His Honour Judge Gibson as to how he would address the jury in a case of an offence under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Rottweiler with no history of aggression attacking passer by.
Updated: 21 May 2021; Ref: scu.86129

Badger Trust, Regina (on The Application of) v The Welsh Ministers: Admn 16 Apr 2010

The Claimant, the Badger Trust, seeks to challenge the decision of the Minister for Rural Affairs pursuant to the Animal Health Act 1981 to make the Tuberculosis Eradication (Wales) Order 2009
[2010] EWHC 768 (Admin), [2010] NPC 45
Bailii
Animal Health Act 1981, Tuberculosis Eradication (Wales) Order 2009
Wales

Updated: 24 February 2021; Ref: scu.408636

RSPCA v Johnson: Admn 16 Oct 2009

Appeal by the RSPCA by way of case stated from a decision refusing to hear an information laid by the Society on the basis that it was out of time. The defendant was a horse owner accused of causing suffering in his horse.
Held: Pill LJ said: ‘There is no principle of law that knowledge in a prosecutor begins immediately any employee of that prosecutor has the relevant knowledge and Donnachie does not establish one. It is right that prosecutors are not entitled to shuffle papers between officers or sit on information so as to extend a time limit. There is, however, a degree of judgment involved in bringing a prosecution, and knowledge . . involves an opportunity for those with appropriate skills to consider whether there is sufficient information to justify a prosecution.
It is not disputed that the Society have a department making decisions as to whether to prosecute. That is separate from the role of the investigating officers who obtain information on the ground . . .It is in the public interest that prosecutions are brought only upon a consideration of the evidence by an expert mind . .’
Pill LJ, Rafferty J
[2009] EWHC 2702 (Admin)
Bailii
Animal Welfare Act 2006
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedRiley and Others v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 18-Oct-2016
The defendants appealed by case stated from convictions under the 2006 Act arising from the treatment of cows including at a slaughterhouse. Arguments were put that the prosecution was time barred.
Held: The court recognsed the limited role of . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 February 2021; Ref: scu.377565

Rubach (Environment and Consumers): ECJ 16 Jul 2009

ECJ Protection of species of wild fauna and flora Species listed in Annex B to Regulation (EC) No 338/97 Evidence of lawful acquisition of specimens of those species Burden of proof – Presumption of innocence – Rights of the defence.
C-344/08, [2009] EUECJ C-344/08
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 18 February 2021; Ref: scu.374271

Schwaninger Martin, Viehhandel – Viehexport v Zollamt Salzburg, Erstattungen: ECJ 28 Feb 2008

ECJ Opinion – Export refunds – Protection of bovine animals during transport – Rest periods – Route plan
C-207/06, [2008] EUECJ C-207/06 – O
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 615/98, Directive 91/628/EEC
European
Cited by:
OpinionSchwaninger Martin, Viehhandel – Viehexport v Zollamt Salzburg, Erstattungen ECJ 17-Jul-2008
ECJ Regulation (EC) No 615/98 – Export refunds – Welfare of live bovine animals during transport – Directive 91/628/EEC – Applicability of the rules relating to the protection of animals during transport – Rules . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 February 2021; Ref: scu.266099

Greenpeace Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: CA 31 Oct 2005

[2005] EWCA Civ 1656
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal FromGreenpeace Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Admn 10-Oct-2005
Greenpeace asserted that the respondent had failed to make adequate arrangements to protect the common dolphin from unintended mortality from fishing activities as it was required to do under the Regulation. Measures had been proposed but they were . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 January 2021; Ref: scu.238603

Guildford Borough Council v Hein: CA 27 Jul 2005

The council sought an injunction under the section against the defendant to restrain her from keeping dogs on her premises for animal welfare purposes.
Held: The defendant’s appeal was allowed in part. There had to be shown something more than repeated infringements to support an injunction. The authority had to show a deliberate and flagrant flouting of the law. (Clarke LJ dissenting in part)
Waller, Clarke LJJ, Sir Martin Nourse
[2005] EWCA Civ 979, Times 21-Sep-2005, [2005] BLGR 797
Bailii
Local Government Act 1972 222
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedStoke-On-Trent City Council v B and Q (Retail) Ltd HL 1984
The defendants had been trading on Sundays in breach of s.47 of the Shops Act 1950, which, by s.71(1) imposed on every local authority the duty to enforce within their district the provisions of that Act. Parliament has given local authorities a . .
CitedCity of London Corporation v Bovis Construction Ltd CA 18-Apr-1988
An injunction had been granted to restrain Bovis from causing a noise nuisance outside certain hours specified in a notice served by the council under the 1974 Act which created a criminal offence ‘without reasonable excuse’ to contravene the . .
CitedWorcestershire County Council v Tongue and others ChD 6-Aug-2003
The defendants had been convicted of offences involving mistreatment of animals, and debarred from having custody of animals. They were now in breach of that order, and the council sought a civil order allowing it access to their land to remove any . .

Cited by:
CitedBirmingham City Council v Shafi and Another CA 30-Oct-2008
birmingham_shafiCA2008
The Council appealed a finding that the court did not have jurisdiction to obtain without notice injunctions to control the behaviour of youths said to be creating a disturbance, including restricting their rights to enter certain parts of the city . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 January 2021; Ref: scu.229025

Webb v Avon and Somerset Constabulary and Another: Admn 20 Dec 2017

The appellants challenged the interpretation of the 1991 Act, and of the 2015 Order, and in particular whether the power of a court under section 4B of the Act to make a contingent destruction order (‘CDO’) in relation to a dog prohibited under the Act including those of the type known as pit bull terriers where the court considers that the dog would not constitute a danger to public safety and other conditions are satisfied.
Beatson LJ, Whipple J
[2017] EWHC 3311 (Admin)
Bailii
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, Dangerous Dogs Exemption Schemes (England and Wales) Order 2015
England and Wales

Updated: 22 January 2021; Ref: scu.602599

Adams, Murray, Holman-Baird, Plummer, The Fife Hunt, Campbell Gilmour, the Chairman and Master thereof the Buccleuch Hunt Supports Club and others v Scottish Ministers: OHCS 28 May 2004

Lord Justice Clerk and Lord Abernethy And Lord Macfadyen
[2004] ScotCS 127, [2004] SC 665
Bailii
Scotland
Citing:
CitedHandyside v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Dec-1976
The appellant had published a ‘Little Red Schoolbook’. He was convicted under the 1959 and 1964 Acts on the basis that the book was obscene, it tending to deprave and corrupt its target audience, children. The book claimed that it was intended to . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 January 2021; Ref: scu.198030

Worcestershire County Council v Tongue, Tongue, and Tongue: CA 17 Feb 2004

The defendants had been convicted of animal welfare offences, and banned from keeping animals. The claimant sought to enter the premises to remove animals, but were denied entry.
Held: The court had no power to make an order to allow access for this purpose:’ truth what the Council is doing is to point to deficiencies in the present criminal law and to ask the court to make an order overcoming those deficiencies.’
Lord Justice Chadwick Lord Justice Peter Gibson Sir Martin Nourse
[2004] EWCA Civ 140, Gazette 18-Mar-2004, [2004] 2 Ch 36
Bailii
Protection of Animals Act 1911 1, Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act 2000
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromWorcestershire County Council v Tongue and others ChD 6-Aug-2003
The defendants had been convicted of offences involving mistreatment of animals, and debarred from having custody of animals. They were now in breach of that order, and the council sought a civil order allowing it access to their land to remove any . .
CitedStoke-On-Trent City Council v B and Q (Retail) Ltd HL 1984
The defendants had been trading on Sundays in breach of s.47 of the Shops Act 1950, which, by s.71(1) imposed on every local authority the duty to enforce within their district the provisions of that Act. Parliament has given local authorities a . .
CitedCornwall County Council v Baker Admn 18-Feb-2003
The defendant had been convicted of cruelty to his animals. The prosecutor appealed dismissal of an application for an interim order for protection under the 2000 Act in respect of other animals not the subject of the application.
Held: The . .
CitedSouth Carolina Insurance Co v Assurantie Maatschappij de Zeven Provincien NV HL 1987
There can be little basis for the grant of relief to a landowner providing protection from an action in nuisance if the landowner will not himself remedy the public nuisance. The House considered whether the circumstances gave the court power to . .
CitedBroadmoor Hospital Authority and Another v Robinson CA 20-Dec-1999
Where a body was given statutory duties, it would normally be entitled to orders restraining others from interfering with its performance of those duties. A patient detained under the Act had written a book, and the Hospital had sought to restrain . .
CitedChief Constable of Kent v V 1982
In order to obtain an injunction with respect to property in the possession of a defendant, the right sought to be enforced need not be a proprietary right of the claimant, nor a right for the benefit of the claimant itself. (Slade LJ dissenting) . .
CitedChief Constable of Hampshire v A Ltd CA 1984
The court explained Chief Constable of Kent -v- V: ‘jurisdiction to grant an injunction on the application of the Chief Constable in that case existed only if he could be found to have a sufficient interest in making the application, and they appear . .
CitedChief Constable of Leicestershire v M and Another ChD 1988
The defendant had obtained money by fraud and used it to purchase property, which then increased in value.
Held: The police did not have any right based on the increase in value to found a claim for an injunction to prevent the defendant . .

Cited by:
Appealed toWorcestershire County Council v Tongue and others ChD 6-Aug-2003
The defendants had been convicted of offences involving mistreatment of animals, and debarred from having custody of animals. They were now in breach of that order, and the council sought a civil order allowing it access to their land to remove any . .
CitedBirmingham City Council v Shafi and Another CA 30-Oct-2008
birmingham_shafiCA2008
The Council appealed a finding that the court did not have jurisdiction to obtain without notice injunctions to control the behaviour of youths said to be creating a disturbance, including restricting their rights to enter certain parts of the city . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 January 2021; Ref: scu.193581

Compassion in World Farming Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: Admn 27 Nov 2003

The Directive sought to provide welfare protection for battery chickens. The applicant complained that the farming techniques which restricted diet in order to encourage fast growth would have been prevented if the respondent had properly implemented the Directive in its Code under the 1968 Act, and in the 2000 Regulations. They said that the Directive required the respondent to control compliance through criminal sanctions. The respondent had adopted a scheme of only civil enforcement.
Held: The obligations were expressed in a general fashion, which was to be taken to allow the respondent a discretion as to how the objectives could be achieved. The objectives of the Directive were not to be confused with the means of attaining them. The respondent was entitled to conclude that a criminal code might be counter-productive.
Newman J
[2003] EWHC 2850 (Admin), Times 05-Dec-2003
Bailii
Council Directive 98/58/EC, Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 2, Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2000
Citing:
See AlsoRegina v Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, ex parte Compassion In World Farming Ltd ECJ 19-Mar-1998
Restrictions of export of live animals were unsupportable under the Treaty. The justification for the rules which was that the action of exporting live animals was contrary to public morals, or for the protection of the animals was insufficient.
Cited by:
Appeal fromRegina on the Application of Compassion In World Farming Limited v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs CA 29-Jul-2004
The claimants challenged regulations as to animal welfare, saying that they allowed farmers to use practices which did not protect animal welfare.
Held: It was not unlawful to adopt a policy of not prosecuting farmers for practices which would . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 January 2021; Ref: scu.188324

Cornwall County Council v Baker: Admn 18 Feb 2003

The defendant had been convicted of cruelty to his animals. The prosecutor appealed dismissal of an application for an interim order for protection under the 2000 Act in respect of other animals not the subject of the application.
Held: The 2000 Act preserved the meanings used in the 1911 Act, and the section did not extend to animals other than those who had been the subject of the proceedings. In this case the words ‘and for connected purposes’ were insufficient to extend the ambit of the Act.
Toulson J
[2003] EWHC 374 (Admin), [2003] 2 All ER 178
Bailii
Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act 2000 2, Protection of Animals Act 1911 1
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Bates 1952
If a statute is ambiguous, the court may look at the long title to discover the purpose of the Act: ‘In many cases the long title may supply the key to the meaning. The principle, as I understand it, is that where something is doubtful or ambiguous . .

Cited by:
CitedWorcestershire County Council v Tongue, Tongue, and Tongue CA 17-Feb-2004
The defendants had been convicted of animal welfare offences, and banned from keeping animals. The claimant sought to enter the premises to remove animals, but were denied entry.
Held: The court had no power to make an order to allow access . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 January 2021; Ref: scu.184960

Lowery v Walker: HL 9 Nov 1910

A trespasser was injured by the land owner’s savage horse.
Held: If a land-owner knows of but does nothing to stop acts of trespass by the public on his land, there may be an implied license. Decision reversed. In Scottish courts the strictness of the duty of care incumbent on the occupier of premises varied according to the circumstances in which the injured party had entered on the premises, and on the extent of his right, or lack of it, to enter. The extent of right, and consequently the stringency of the duty of care, and the question whether care sufficient in the circumstances had been shown, were questions of fact to be determined with regard to the circumstances of the case
Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), the Earl of Halsbury, Lords Atkinson and Shaw
[1911] AC 10, [1910] UKHL 1, [1910] UKHL 726, 48 SLR 726
Bailii, Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromLowery v Walker CA 1910
An occupier of land who knows that members of the public are in the habit of going on to his land and does nothing to prevent it, may be deemed to have licensed them to do so. . .

Cited by:
CitedBritish Railways Board v Herrington HL 16-Feb-1972
Land-owner’s Possible Duty to Trespassers
The plaintiff, a child had gone through a fence onto the railway line, and been badly injured. The Board knew of the broken fence, but argued that they owed no duty to a trespasser.
Held: Whilst a land-owner owes no general duty of care to a . .
CitedRobert Addie and Sons (Collieries) Ltd v Dumbreck SCS 1928
A boy trespassed on land and was injured on machinery there. The local working-classes resorted to the field regularly ‘(1) as an open space; (2) as a playground; (3) as a means of access to chapel and railway station; and (4) – as regards the less . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 January 2021; Ref: scu.182878

Langton, Allen, Regina (on the Application of) v Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Another: Admn 17 Dec 2001

The claimants were farmers, who had been made subject to orders under the Act. They had accumulated maggot waste on their land. The second defendant accepted that the waste included material which would be high risk under the Directive. The defendant had entered the claimant’s land to execute works required under the notice, and the claimant argued this interfered with their property rights under the Convention. The maggot waste which had been supplied to him had included other animal wastes.
Held: Neither the Act for the Order allowed any provision for an appeal. Was judicial review a sufficient alternative remedy? Some of the significant decisions predated the Human Rights Act, and the actual procedure adopted allowed representations to be made, and for review if necessary. The Act was compliant.
Mr Nigel Pleming QC (Sitting As A Deputy High Court Judge
[2001] EWHC Admin 1047
Bailii
Animal Health Act 1981, Animal By-Products Order 1999, European Convention on Human Rights, Council Directive 90/667/EEC of 27th November 1990.
Citing:
CitedRegina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others HL 9-May-2001
Power to call in is administrative in nature
The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights . .
CitedMcLellan v Bracknell Forest Borough Council; Reigate Borough Council v Benfield and Another CA 16-Oct-2001
The tenant was issued with a notice to quit for unpaid rent, within the first year, during an ‘introductory tenancy.’ She sought judicial review on the basis that the reduced security of tenure infringed her human rights.
Held: Review was . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 January 2021; Ref: scu.167368

Wykeham (Trading as Knightwood Kennels) and Another v The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food: Admn 19 Nov 2001

Appeal from refusal of leave to seek judicial review of letter altering arrangements for compensation to quarantine kennels on the relaxation quarantine requirements.
Rafferty J
[2001] EWHC Admin 979
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 07 January 2021; Ref: scu.167270

Tridon, Federation departementale des chasseurs de l’Isere, and Federation Rhone-Alpes de protection de la nature (Frapna), section Isere: ECJ 23 Oct 2001

ECJ Wild fauna and flora – Endangered species – Application in the Community of the Washington Convention
C-510/99, [2001] EUECJ C-510/99, [2001] ECR I-7777, [2002] All ER (EC) 534, ECLI:EU:C:2001:559, [2002] Env LR D 5, [2003] 1 CMLR 2
Bailii
European

Updated: 07 January 2021; Ref: scu.166765

Jippes and others v Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij: ECJ 12 Jul 2001

(Judgment) Community law did not recognise the rights of animals as fundamental. The applicant owned animals, which fell to be destroyed as part of a preventive cull to protect against the spread of foot and mouth disease. The animals would not be moved nor mix with other animals. They claimed that the ban on vaccination which left the cull as an only alternative, was made without regard to a principle of promoting the welfare of animals. The protection of animals was neither an objective of the community, nor a principle of law. The directive was not manifestly inappropriate.
ECJ Agriculture – Control of foot-and-mouth disease – Prohibition of vaccination – Principle of proportionality – Taking animal welfare into account
‘the criterion to be applied is not whether the measure adopted by the legislature was the only one or the best one possible but whether it was manifestly inappropriate’
Times 19-Jul-2001, [2001] EUECJ C-189/01, C-189/01, [2001] ECR I-5689, ECLI:EU:C:2001:420
Bailii
Cited by:
CitedLumsdon and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Legal Services Board SC 24-Jun-2015
The appellant, barristers and solicitors, challenged the respondent’s approval of alterations to their regulatory arrangements, under Part 3 of Schedule 4 to the 2007 Act. The alterations gave effect to the Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 January 2021; Ref: scu.162815

M Najib and Sons Ltd v Crown Prosecution Service: CACD 26 Apr 2018

The company appealed against its conviction under the 2010 Regulation for failing to provide the required assistance for the taking of samples by an inspector. The company admitted the facts but said that the cost of compliance was too high, and unfairly distributed.
Held:
Leggatt LJ, McGowan DBE J, Sir Peter Openshaw
[2018] EWCA Crim 909, [2018] WLR(D) 258
Bailii, WLRD
Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies (England) Regulations 2010
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Chalkley, Jeffries CACD 19-Dec-1997
The 1995 Act will not permit the Court of Appeal to allow an appeal where a conviction was safe but there was a substantial procedural unfairness. In order to understand the role of pre-1 January 1996 jurisprudence in applying what is now the . .

Cited by:
See AlsoNajib and Sons Ltd v Crown Prosecution Service CACD 3-Jul-2018
The defendant applied for its costs. It had been convicted for a breach of the Regulations, but the Inspector had not had the power to make the request it had denied.
Held: ‘The present case is one in which the prosecution failed as a matter . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 December 2020; Ref: scu.609502

Cummings v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 26 Mar 1999

A dog was in a public place even when the area was fenced off where it could be deemed to be public by virtue of public ownership. Private agreement between neighbours to fence of an area is insufficient.
Times 26-Mar-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 171
Bailii
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 3(1), Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act 1997
England and Wales

Updated: 17 December 2020; Ref: scu.79708

Applebee v Percy: 1874

Brett J explained the distinction between animals by their nature dangerous, and animals where the particular one was, in these terms: ‘A distinction has always been taken between animals which are by nature fierce and untameable, such as tigers and others ferae naturae, and those which are not in their general nature ferocious. If a man keeps an animal of the former class, and another is injured, the owner of the animal is liable without any evidence of a scienter; but, where the animal belongs to a class which is not habitually ferocious, it is necessary to shew that its owner has notice that it has on former occasions shewn symptoms of a disposition to bite mankind.’
Brett J
(1874) 9 LR CP 647
England and Wales

Updated: 16 December 2020; Ref: scu.616608

Williams v Richards: CA 1907

A complaint was made to the Swansea Justices, under section 2 of the 1871 Act, in relation to the conduct of a dog which had been seen to kill sheep and lambs. The Justices dismissed the complaint on the basis that no evidence had been adduced before them to show that the dog was dangerous to mankind.
Held: The Court remitted the matter to them to hear and deal with the complaint on its merits. Lord Alverstone CJ said: ‘Having regard to the fact that the previous legislation, namely, the Dogs Act, 1865, shews that the intention was to protect people’s property, I can see no reason why the word ‘dangerous’ in s. 2 of the Act of 1871 should be construed as meaning only ‘dangerous to mankind”
Lord Alverstone C
[1907] 2 KB 88
Dogs Act 1871
England and Wales

Updated: 16 December 2020; Ref: scu.616609

Willoughby And Others v Horridge: 19 Nov 1852

The lessees of a ferry provided steam-boats for the conveyance of passengers, goods, and cattle from A. to B., and also slips for landing and embark ing, which were (generally) sufficient for the purpose :—Held, that they were liable for an injury sustained by the horse of a passenger, in consequence of the side-rail of the landing slip (of the dangerous state of which they had been forewarned) giving way, although the horse was at the time under the control and management of its owner.
[1852] EngR 1026, (1852) 12 CB 742, (1852) 138 ER 1096
Commonlii
England and Wales

Updated: 14 December 2020; Ref: scu.296149

Holliday v Morgan: 2 Nov 1858

A warranty of soundness, oil the sale of a horse, is broken by a malformation, existing from the birth of the horse, which, at the time of the sale, renders the horse less fit for reasonable use. – As an extraordinary convexity of the cornea of the eye, producing shortsightedness, in consequence of which the horse is liable to shy. – Such a defect in the eye is not so patent a defect that a purchaser with express warranty is bound to notice it.
[1858] EngR 1066, (1858) 1 El and El 1, (1858) 120 ER 808
Commonlii
England and Wales

Updated: 14 December 2020; Ref: scu.289537

South Kesteven District Council v Mackie and Others: CA 20 Oct 1999

Where animals, which would be counted as dangerous wild animals, were used as performing animals through the summer months, but were kept in settled winter quarters, there was still no need for the keeper to obtain a licence for that keeping.
Times 20-Oct-1999
Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 1
England and Wales

Updated: 08 December 2020; Ref: scu.89412

Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica Gmbh and Another v Council of European Union etc: ECFI 3 Feb 2000

Where the purpose of European legislation was to protect public health by, in this instance, prohibiting the administration of beta-agonists to farm animals, that purpose was to be given effect even though it might have severe and adverse financial consequences for private individuals and companies.
Times 03-Feb-2000, T-125/96
European

Updated: 01 December 2020; Ref: scu.78463

Bates v United Kingdom: ECHR 16 Jan 1996

The claimant sought to challenge the rebuttable presumption as to the breed of a dog enacted in section 5(5) of the Act.
Held: The applicant had been entitled but, although represented, had failed, to call evidence to prove at trial that his dog was not of the breed proscribed by the Act, and that the court had relied on an admission by him that the dog was of the breed proscribed. The section was held to fall within reasonable limits. The complaint was inadmissible.
References: 26280/95, Unreported, 16 January 1996
Statutes: Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 5
Jurisdiction: Human Rights
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Sheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions; Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 2002 HL 14-Oct-2004
    Appeals were brought complaining as to the apparent reversal of the burden of proof in road traffic cases and in cases under the Terrorism Acts. Was a legal or an evidential burden placed on a defendant?
    Held: Lord Bingham of Cornhill said: . .
    (, , [2004] UKHL 43, [2005] 1 AC 264, Times 14-Oct-04, [2005] 1 All ER 237, [2004] 3 WLR 976, [2005] RTR 13, (2004) 168 JP 669, (2004) 17 BHRC 339, [2004] All ER (D) 169)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.218814

The Case of Swans: 1572

A prescription to have all wild swans, which are ferae naturae and not marked, building their nests, breeding, and frequenting within a particular creek, is not good.
All white swans not marked, having gained their natural liberty, and swimming in an open and common river, may be seised to the King’s use by his prerogative.
A swan is a Royal fowl, and whales and sturgeons are Royal fish.
Every one who hath swans within his private waters hath a property in them.
A man may prescribe to have a game of swans within his manor, and may prescribe that his mans may swim within the manor of another.
A swan may be an estray.
Cygnets belong equally to the owner of the cock and the owner of the hen, and shall be divided betwixt them.
References: [1572] EngR 403, (1572-1616) 7 Co Rep 15, (1572) 77 ER 435
Links: Commonlii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.432369

Langton, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Another: Admn 15 Aug 2018

The claimant sought judicial review of the Secretary’s policy of supplementary culling of badgers in areas where there has already been an intensive cull.
Held: Refused.
References: [2018] EWHC 2190 (Admin)
Links: Bailii
Statutes: Badgers Act 1973, Protection of Badgers Act 1992
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.621161

Freen and Others v Director of Public Prosecutions: QBD 29 Jun 2000

A ‘badger sett’ does not include the earth above the tunnels and chambers forming the sett. There had been digging in the area of the sett, and above it, but no evidence of any damage to the sett itself. Because of the penal nature of the provision it was necessary to have a clear meaning for the words. The extended meaning suggested would put others in the countryside undertaking legitimate activities in danger.
References: Times 29-Jun-2000
Statutes: Badgers Act 1992

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.80682

Commission v Bulgaria C-97/17: ECJ 26 Apr 2018

Environment – Conservation of Wild Birds – Judgment – Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Protection of nature – Directive 2009/147/EC – Conservation of wild birds – Special Protection Area (SPA) – Classification as SPAs of the most suitable territories in number and size for the conservation of the bird species listed in Annex I to Directive 2009/147 – Important Bird Area (IBA) – IBA Rila – Partial classification of IBA Rila as an SPA
References: ECLI:EU:C:2018:285, [2018] EUECJ C-97/17
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: European

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.609302

The Association of Independent Meat Suppliers, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs: Admn 27 Jul 2017

Claim for judicial review of a decision by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in relation to the slaughtering of sheep in accordance with religious rites.
References: [2017] EWHC 1961 (Admin)
Links: Bailii
Judges: Fraser J
Statutes: Welfare at the Time of Killing Regulations 2015
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 11 November 2020; Ref: scu.591657

The Association of Independent Meat Suppliers and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v The Food Standards Agency: CA 20 Jun 2017

Appeal from refusal of judicial review of the system for imposing controls on slaughterhouses.
References: [2017] EWCA Civ 431, [2017] WLR(D) 422
Links: Bailii, WLRD
Judges: Jackson, Rafferty, Kitchin LJJ
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 10 November 2020; Ref: scu.588317

Chancepixies Animal Welfare, Regina (on The Application of) v North Kesteven District Council: Admn 6 Jul 2016

The claimant sought judicial review of the revocation by the Council of a dog breeding licence, saying that it had been made without jurisdiction.
References: [2016] EWHC 3617 (Admin)
Links: Bailii
Judges: Edis J
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 10 November 2020; Ref: scu.588222

Schwaninger Martin, Viehhandel – Viehexport v Zollamt Salzburg, Erstattungen: ECJ 17 Jul 2008

ECJ Regulation (EC) No 615/98 – Export refunds – Welfare of live bovine animals during transport – Directive 91/628/EEC – Applicability of the rules relating to the protection of animals during transport – Rules relating to journey times and rest periods and to the transportation of bovine animals by sea to a destination outside of the Community – Feeding and watering of the animals during the journey
References: [2008] EUECJ C-207/06
Links: Bailii
Statutes: Regulation (EC) No 615/98, Directive 91/628/EEC
Jurisdiction: European
This case cites:

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 05 November 2020; Ref: scu.581323

Commission v Greece C-504/14: ECJ 10 Nov 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Environment – Nature conservation – Directive 92/43/EEC – Article 6(2) and (3) and Article 12(1)(b) and (d) – Wild fauna and flora – Conservation of natural habitats – Sea turtle Caretta caretta – Protection of sea turtles in the Gulf of Kyparissia – ‘Dunes of Kyparissia’ Site of Community importance – Protection of species
References: ECLI:EU:C:2016:847, [2016] EUECJ C-504/14
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: European

Last Update: 25 October 2020; Ref: scu.571266

Riley and Others v Crown Prosecution Service: Admn 18 Oct 2016

The defendants appealed by case stated from convictions under the 2006 Act arising from the treatment of cows including at a slaughterhouse. Arguments were put that the prosecution was time barred.
Held: The court recognsed the limited role of the investigators and the CPS who would eventually institute proceedings. Time started running under s.31(1)(b) of the Act once a suitably qualified CPS employee has knowledge of ‘…evidence which the prosecutor thinks is sufficient to justify the proceedings’, and the case was not time barred.
References: [2016] EWHC 2531 (Admin), [2016] WLR(D) 530
Links: Bailii, WLRD
Judges: Gross LJ, Andrews J
Statutes: Animal Welfare Act 2006 4(1), Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 127(1)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • Cited – Morgans v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 29-Dec-1998 (Times 29-Dec-98, [1999] 1 WLR 968)
    The defendant argued that once the prosecutor had all the material on which the prosecution was eventually brought, then for the purposes of section 11(2) time began to run.
    Held: When considering the time limits for a prosecution under the . .
  • Distinguished – Donnachie, Regina (on the Application of) v Cardiff Magistrates’ Court and Another Admn 16-Mar-2009 (, [2009] EWHC 489 (Admin))
    A prosecutor for the purposes of the Trade Descriptions Act was the council and not an individual employee. . .
  • Cited – RSPCA v Johnson Admn 16-Oct-2009 (, [2009] EWHC 2702 (Admin))
    Appeal by the RSPCA by way of case stated from a decision refusing to hear an information laid by the Society on the basis that it was out of time. The defendant was a horse owner accused of causing suffering in his horse.
    Held: Pill LJ said: . .
  • Cited – Letherbarrow v Warwickshire County Council Admn 15-Dec-2014 (, [2014] EWHC 4820 (Admin))
    This is an appeal by way of case stated from a decision of the Warwickshire Justices to convict the appellant on a number of counts of contraventions of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. It is argued that the prosecution had failed to comply with the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 24 October 2020; Ref: scu.570265

The Royal Society for The Protection of Birds, Re Judicial Review CSOH – 103: SCS 19 Jul 2016

Opinion
References: [2016] ScotCS CSOH – 103
Links: Bailii
Judges: Lord Stewart
Statutes: Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007
This case cites:

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 23 October 2020; Ref: scu.568774

The Royal Society for The Protection of Birds, Re Judicial Review CSOH – 104: SCS 19 Jul 2016

Outer House – Opinion – challenge to permission for wind farm
References: [2016] ScotCS CSOH – 104
Links: Bailii
Judges: Lord Stewart
Jurisdiction: Scotland
This case is cited by:

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 23 October 2020; Ref: scu.568775

Royal Society for The Protection of Birds, Re Judicial Review CSOH – 105: SCS 19 Jul 2016

References: [2016] ScotCS CSOH – 105
Links: Bailii
This case cites:

This case is cited by:

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 23 October 2020; Ref: scu.568776

Commission v Greece C-416/07: ECJ 10 Sep 2009

ECJ Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations Directives 91/628/EEC and 93/119/EC Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 – Protection of animals during transport and at the time of slaughter or killing Structural and general infringement of Community rules
References: [2009] EUECJ C-416/07
Links: Bailii
This case cites:

  • Opinion – Commission v Greece C-416/07 ECJ 2-Apr-2009 (, [2009] EUECJ C-416/07 – O)
    ECJ Opinion – Failure to fulfill obligations Article 226 EC Directive 91/628 Regulation No 1/2005 Protection of animals during transport and identification transporter authorizations route plans Control . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 22 October 2020; Ref: scu.566223

Regina v Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, ex parte Compassion In World Farming Ltd: ECJ 19 Mar 1998

Restrictions of export of live animals were unsupportable under the Treaty. The justification for the rules which was that the action of exporting live animals was contrary to public morals, or for the protection of the animals was insufficient.
ECJ (Free movement of goods) Articles 34 and 36 of the EC Treaty – Directive 91/629/EEC – European Convention on the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes – Recommendation concerning Cattle – Export of calves from a Member State maintaining the level of protection laid down by the Convention and the Recommendation – Export to Member States which comply with the Directive but do not observe the standards laid down in the Convention or the Recommendation and use intensive farming systems prohibited in the exporting State – Quantitative restrictions on exports – Exhaustive harmonisation – Validity of the Directive
References: Times 02-Apr-1998, [1998] ECR I-1251, [1998] EUECJ C-1/96
Links: Bailii, Bailii
Statutes: EC Treaty 34 36, Directive 91/629/EEC
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 19 October 2020; Ref: scu.563234