The High Court has struck out proceedings brought by ASM Alternative Feeds Limited over the suspension of its animal-feed business registration, finding that the company’s decade-long delay was inordinate and inexcusable.
Mr Justice Charles Meenan said the defendants had shown considerable prejudice in defending the claim, including the retirement of several witnesses and the death of one. The court’s judgment, delivered on 20 December 2022, recorded that the proceedings were struck out. The judge’s view that the defendants should receive the costs of the motion and proceedings was provisional; final orders were to be made after any written submissions and a further hearing.
The company was incorporated in 2008 and produced animal feeds. The judgment says government agents sampled produce at its premises around 15 June 2011. After a test detected dioxin, the defendants temporarily suspended its feed-business registration on 25 July that year. They accepted on or about 3 August that the result was an error: it had attributed a third party’s positive result to the company. The registration was restored on 15 December 2011, after the company brought judicial review proceedings, which the defendants did not defend.
The judgment describes that period as an apparent wrongful suspension but says the precise basis of the company’s claim in the present proceedings was unclear because no statement of claim had been delivered.
The company issued the claim in May 2012. It served four notices of intention to proceed between 2014 and 2021 and sought voluntary discovery in 2015, but had not delivered a statement of claim by the time the defendants applied to dismiss the case in March 2021. A solicitor’s letter in August 2014 said a draft statement of claim had been completed and would be sent once finalised.
The company relied on the serious ill health of its principal director, Nigel Foster, and financial difficulties to explain the delay. Justice Meenan rejected both explanations, saying they did not credibly account for failing to take the basic step of delivering a statement of claim. He also rejected the company’s submission that the case was one of documents, finding that evidence about the events in 2011 would be required.
The defendants identified six witnesses involved in the investigation and suspension process who had retired; one had also died. The judge said a trial before 2024 or early 2025 was highly unlikely and that the passage of time would considerably prejudice the defence. He found that the defendants had not contributed to the delay.
The court invited written submissions of no more than 2,000 words on costs by 13 January 2023 and listed the matter for 20 January to make final orders. The judgment does not state what final costs order was subsequently made.