The High Court ruled that a Roscommon farmer’s claims against the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Ireland and the Attorney General were largely statute-barred, and dismissed the remaining claims because public-law challenges had not been brought promptly.
In a judgment delivered on 1 November 2013, Ms Justice Laffoy answered a preliminary issue about the Statute of Limitations 1957. The issue concerned claims pleaded in paragraphs 7 to 26 of the farmer’s amended statement of claim. The court held those claims statute-barred and ordered their dismissal insofar as they were out of time.
The claims arose from the Minister’s operation of bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis schemes and related farm payments. The farmer alleged, among other things, that payments due under Community Aid schemes from 1991 to 1997 had been withheld; that the schemes and related reactor grants lacked a lawful basis; and that cattle had been tested, tagged, restricted or directed for slaughter in breach of Irish and European law. He also challenged deductions of €155.32 for testing fees and €518 in 2009 over alleged sheep and goat identification-rule breaches. These were allegations in the pleadings, not findings that the Minister had acted unlawfully.
The defendants argued that the claims were tort claims subject to a six-year limitation period. The judge concluded that the pleaded events before July 2004 were outside that period when proceedings began in July 2010. She rejected the farmer’s argument that alleged concealment or delayed discovery postponed the limitation period, finding that relevant judgments and the operation of the schemes were in the public domain. The court also said that a claim not time-barred could be brought in new proceedings if properly formulated.
The judge separately dismissed the balance of the claim under the court’s inherent jurisdiction. She found that the remaining challenges were public-law claims that should have been brought promptly and within the applicable Order 84, rule 21 time limits, applied by analogy to the plenary proceedings. She also found no good reason to extend the time. The order does not record a ruling on every ground the defendants had raised: the judge said it was unnecessary to decide several, and declined to express a view on whether one part of the claim collaterally challenged the outcome of earlier criminal proceedings.
The judgment records two further conclusions: the farmer had not established a cause of action over the €155.32 testing-fee deduction, and no recognisable cause of action had been properly pleaded over alleged charges for sheep and goat identification tags. The operative order, however, comprised the limitation ruling and dismissal of the balance for delay.