The Court of Appeal has dismissed Patrick Joseph Kenny’s appeal against the High Court’s decision to dismiss his claims against the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Ireland and the Attorney General. The appeal concerned animal disease control schemes, compensation for slaughtered animals, farming payments and charges. The judgment was delivered by Donnelly J. on 5 May 2022, with Ní Raifeartaigh and Collins JJ. agreeing.
Kenny issued plenary proceedings in July 2010. Most of his claims concerned events in the 1990s or 2000, including alleged underpayments under Community Aid schemes, the absence of a statutory compensation scheme for animals slaughtered as disease reactors, and alleged breaches of EU requirements. Other claims concerned deductions from farm payments, testing fees, animal identification tags and criminal proceedings under the schemes.
The State sought dismissal on limitation grounds and argued that public law challenges had not been brought promptly. The High Court dismissed most claims as statute barred under the Statute of Limitations. It dismissed the remaining public law claims for failure to meet the time limits in Order 84, rule 21 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, applied by analogy. It also found that particular parts of the pleadings disclosed no recognisable cause of action.
On appeal, Kenny argued, among other things, that alleged concealment and a representation during earlier criminal proceedings should prevent the State from relying on limitation periods. The Court of Appeal found no evidence supporting the alleged representation or concealment. It said the legal decisions relied on were publicly available and found no error in the High Court’s treatment of limitation and delay.
The court also rejected Kenny’s contention that his claim concerning 2007 criminal proceedings was a properly pleaded malicious prosecution claim. It held that the pleadings did not set out the necessary elements of that cause of action. The court found that claims concerning deductions and charges likewise did not establish a viable cause of action where identified, and that the relevant public law claims were out of time.
The court declined to permit amendments to the pleadings at this stage, citing the substantial delay and prejudice to the State. It dismissed the appeal. It indicated that the State defendants appeared entitled to their appeal costs, subject to Kenny’s right to apply within 14 days for a further hearing on a different costs order; absent such an application, the proposed costs order would be made.