The Supreme Court has agreed that a compensation claim arising from the destruction of animals during the 2001 foot-and-mouth outbreak must return to the High Court, including the question of consequential loss.
In a judgment delivered on 7 November 2014, Justice O’Donnell said he agreed with the judgment of Chief Justice Denham. He added observations on the compensation framework and the valuation of the animals.
The case concerned foot-and-mouth disease first reported at Maigh, County Armagh, on 1 March 2001, and later in a sheep flock at Proleek, near Jenkinstown, County Louth. Justice O’Donnell described the outbreak as a particular catastrophe for sheep farmers on the Cooley Peninsula, who were directly at risk from the disease.
He said the claim was ambitious, and that the trial judge’s findings showed the valuation of the animals themselves by Mr Mulvihill was generous. But the trial judge had also found that the plaintiffs were not fully compensated under certain headings, particularly consequential loss. Justice O’Donnell agreed that this required the issue to return to the High Court, even if the ultimate award might not differ much from the amount already assessed.
He agreed that compensation meant total loss, assessed by market value. Applying market value could be difficult where no market was functioning, he said, and the valuation date and assumptions could affect the result. The judgment said the case had not argued that compensation should be assessed on the assumption that the outbreak had not occurred, or at a pre-outbreak market price. Justice O’Donnell saw no requirement in the cited legislation for a valuer to use that assumption.
Justice O’Donnell also criticised the statutory framework as inadequate and confusing. He said the Minister had not established a scheme under section 58 of the Disease of Animals Act 1966, while the government instead continued to use the Foot and Mouth Disease Order 1956, later confirmed by legislation in 2001. In his view, the rules left the Minister-appointed valuer without sufficient guidance, increasing the risk of unfair compensation.
The source contains Justice O’Donnell’s concurring observations. It does not set out the Chief Justice’s full judgment or the Supreme Court’s formal order.