The High Court has upheld the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine’s decision to refuse the Irish Cob Society approval to maintain studbooks for Irish Cob and associated breeds, finding the decision was bona fide, factually sustainable and not shown to be unreasonable.
In a judgment delivered on 19 December 2013, Mr Justice Hogan rejected the Society’s judicial review challenge. The Society had sought to quash the Minister’s decision of 15 November 2012 refusing its application and revoking its existing authorisation with effect from 29 November 2012. It also challenged a decision refusing its application to issue certain passports. The judgment’s conclusion expressly upholds the refusal of studbook approval.
The Minister’s concerns included passports with identification details signed by Society representatives rather than registered veterinary practitioners, failures to record equines’ food-chain status, and replacement passports issued in circumstances the Minister considered improper. The Society disputed aspects of the Department’s interpretation and said it had not understood some requirements. It acknowledged issuing replacement passports on the basis of statements from owners about microchips, while saying it had not believed this broke the law.
The court held that the Minister did not have to prove a regulatory offence beyond reasonable doubt before refusing approval. Under the applicable regulations, the Minister had to form an opinion about past or likely non-compliance, and that opinion had to be bona fide, factually sustainable and not unreasonable. The judge found those standards were met, citing repeated non-compliance with equine identification and passport requirements, including matters identified during a January 2012 inspection.
The Society also argued that the absence of an oral hearing breached fair procedures. The judge said the Department had set out its case in detailed correspondence and the Society had an opportunity to respond. As there was no essential factual dispute requiring oral evidence, he concluded that not holding an oral hearing did not make the process unfair.
The judgment’s stated conclusion was to uphold the refusal of approval for maintaining the studbooks. It does not state a separate final order on the challenged passport-issuing decision.