The Supreme Court dismissed Emerald Meats Limited’s appeal and the State’s cross-appeal, leaving in place a €2.45 million High Court award for general damages. The award related to the Department of Agriculture’s refusal to grant Emerald a licence for 177 tonnes of GATT meat quota in 1990.
In a judgment delivered by Justice O’Donnell on 30 July 2012, the court refused Emerald’s application to introduce fresh evidence about the turnover of comparator business NWL. It also rejected Emerald’s challenges to the High Court’s method of estimating its losses and the Department’s arguments that the award was too high. The Supreme Court did not make a new damages assessment or order a further High Court hearing.
The 2007 High Court award was based on an estimate of profits Emerald might have earned between 1991 and 2001. The trial judge compared Emerald with NWL, which had continued trading, and treated NWL as about seven times larger in turnover in 1989. Applying that ratio, a three per cent profit margin and interest, the judge arrived at €2.45 million.
Emerald argued that newly submitted accounts showed NWL was closer to three or four times its size, which could have increased the award. The Supreme Court said the accounts had been available and used during the trial, so the fresh-evidence application did not meet the test for evidence that could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence. It also noted that the trial calculation contained an error favourable to Emerald: a turnover figure stated in Irish pounds should have been in euros.
The court rejected Emerald’s other arguments, including that gross profit rather than turnover should have driven the comparison, and that the award should have covered a reported €1.5 million tax liability or included a more detailed interest calculation. The judgment said the tax debt had not been particularised or shown to have a close causal connection to the quota refusal.
The Department challenged the three per cent profit margin and argued that Emerald’s property investments had drained business resources. The Supreme Court said the damages exercise was necessarily a rough estimate based on limited evidence. It concluded that the High Court’s assessment was plausible on the evidence and dismissed both appeals.