The High Court has refused Percy Podger leave to apply for judicial review in a dispute with the Minister for Agriculture over the Basic Payments Scheme, finding that the proposed claim had no arguable basis and was out of time.
Mr Justice Simons delivered the ruling on 15 November 2023 after hearing the leave application on notice to the Minister. The application sought an order compelling the Minister to “re-engage” with Mr Podger about claimed Curragh sheep grazing rights and matters connected with subsidy payments, following a meeting on 26 July 2021.
Mr Podger said a departmental official had undertaken at that meeting to respond within a few weeks but did not do so. The Minister’s replying affidavit said the meeting took place and Mr Podger was told what documents were needed to claim subsidies; it said the required documents were not provided. The judgment notes that no official who attended the meeting gave evidence, and that Mr Podger’s account did not set out in detail what was said or promised.
The judge said the subsidy scheme provides application and appeal procedures, including an appeal to the Agriculture Appeals Office. He found no legal basis for ordering a separate or “parallel” engagement between Mr Podger and the Minister. Nor was there enough evidence to support a claim that the meeting created a legitimate expectation of additional procedural rights. The court therefore concluded that no arguable ground had been established for the relief sought.
The proceedings began in March 2023, almost 18 months after the July 2021 meeting. The applicable time limit was three months under Order 84, rule 21 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. The judge said the delay was plainly beyond that limit and Mr Podger had not established grounds for extending it. He noted that the correspondence sent to the Department without response pointed to a need to act promptly.
Although the Minister had succeeded in opposing leave, the court refused the Minister’s costs application. The judge cited the limited evidence in the Minister’s affidavit about the central meeting and considered it unduly harsh to award costs in a leave application heard on notice. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.