The High Court dismissed claims by two Cooley Peninsula sheep farmers who said State compensation for the 2001 foot-and-mouth cull did not cover the losses they suffered beyond the value of their animals.
In a judgment delivered on 31 October 2008, Mr Justice Brian McGovern held that the compensation scheme was not unjust or unlawful. He also found that the challenged provisions of the Diseases of Animals Act 1966 were not repugnant to the Constitution and that the farmers’ property rights had not been subjected to an unjust attack.
The farmers accepted that their flocks had to be culled in the public interest. They argued that, because their animals were not infected, compensation should include consequential losses as well as market value. They also contended that limiting compensation to market value would be unconstitutional.
The Minister’s position was that the statutory scheme required compensation for the animals, not all consequential losses. The judgment records that compensation was calculated by reference to market value and that both farmers received more than the market value of their animals. The court found, however, that each had suffered losses beyond market value. It said it was unnecessary to resolve disagreements between expert witnesses about the extent of those losses.
The judgment recounts that Brendan Rafferty was paid IR£145,244 for his culled flock. John Elmore received a total of IR£29,495 after an initial payment and a revaluation. Elmore’s flock was hefted, meaning the sheep had learned to remain in a particular area of commonage, and he described difficulties managing replacement sheep on the hillside.
The court considered whether the statutory scheme had to cover consequential loss and whether the compensation provided amounted to an unjust interference with property rights. It found no provision in the 1966 Act requiring consequential losses to be included. Applying constitutional proportionality principles, the judge concluded that the State could provide a reasonable scheme to ease hardship while taking account of the public interest and the potential burden on public funds. The farmers had not established that the scheme was irrational, unjust or unlawful.
The ruling decided the claims brought by Rafferty and Elmore; the judgment said other claims by Cooley Peninsula farmers were to be addressed after the principles were established. The two plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed.