The Supreme Court has dismissed two appeals in a long-running dispute arising from bovine tuberculosis testing of John Rooney’s cattle in 1983. The court upheld the refusal of his motion for judgment in default of defence and dismissed his appeal against a High Court decision refusing to amend his statement of claim.
The appeals were heard on 9 December 2015. In a judgment delivered on 28 January 2016, O’Donnell J. said the proceedings, begun in 1987, had remained unresolved for an unacceptable length of time. The European Court of Human Rights had ruled in 2013 that the delay breached Rooney’s right to have his case heard within a reasonable time, and awarded him €26,000.
Rooney’s original case sought compensation under the Diseases of Animals Act 1966 and the 1978 bovine tuberculosis order. The dispute concerned a non-statutory grant scheme for farmers whose cattle tested positive. In 1991, the Supreme Court dismissed his appeal on a special case, holding that the Minister could establish a non-statutory scheme. The court said it was unnecessary to decide whether there was a constitutional duty to compensate because, if there was, the scheme had provided for it.
The first appeal concerned a motion for judgment in default of defence, issued in 1990 after the State defendants did not file a defence by the extended deadline. A defence was delivered before the motion was heard, and the High Court refused the motion. The Supreme Court did not formally determine that appeal in 1991; it was later listed for decision. O’Donnell J. said the defence had been treated as effective in the earlier hearings and that, after the substantive case had been decided, extending time or entering judgment would serve no purpose. The appeal was dismissed.
The second appeal concerned Rooney’s attempt to amend a statement of claim filed in 1989. The proposed changes included claims that the grant scheme was unconstitutional and that European Union directives had not been properly implemented. The High Court refused the amendment in 2010. O’Donnell J. concluded that the proposed amendment would add a new legal claim to proceedings whose central issue had already been decided. Related arguments had also been raised in later proceedings, and the court found they could have been advanced earlier. The appeal was dismissed.
The Supreme Court recorded Rooney’s complaints about judicial conduct but said they had not affected its consideration of the appeals. It adjourned the case to 5 April 2016 for the parties to consider whether an agreed resolution, including on costs, was possible. The judgment did not determine the appeal costs or make a final order concluding the underlying High Court proceedings.