Judgment: 2016-10-12 · Court archive

High Court removes Northern Ireland agriculture department from Wicklow potato seed case

High Court · [2016] IEHC 552

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Paul Brady
  • John Brady (Plaintiff)
  • S.J. McCreight (Potatoes) Limited
  • Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (Defendant)
What

High Court removes Northern Ireland agriculture department from Wicklow potato seed case

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Kilcoole
  • Northern Ireland
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

Mr Justice Noonan accepted that argument. The court held that the relevant test was whether DARD was acting as an agent of a foreign state and whether the activity in question was governmental rather than private or commercial.

The High Court has removed Northern Ireland’s agriculture department from a damages claim brought by two Kilcoole potato farmers over seed they alleged was wrongly certified.

Paul Brady and John Brady bought two batches of “Premier Elite” potato seed in March 2012. They purchased it through Oliver Choiseul, trading as Potato Services, with the seed sourced from S.J. McCreight (Potatoes) Limited in Northern Ireland.

The farmers alleged that the seed had been certified by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, or DARD, as part of Northern Ireland’s statutory seed certification system. After planting, they claimed the crop failed because the seed was not Premier Elite but was instead of inferior quality and unknown origin.

Their case against DARD alleged negligence, breach of duty and breach of statutory duty. Among other things, they claimed the department permitted pre-stamped certification labels to be issued without the necessary inspections, leaving the system open to abuse.

DARD applied to have service of the proceedings set aside, arguing that it was protected by sovereign immunity.

Mr Justice Noonan accepted that argument. The court held that the relevant test was whether DARD was acting as an agent of a foreign state and whether the activity in question was governmental rather than private or commercial.

The judge found that DARD was acting on behalf of the Crown when administering the seed certification programme. That role was regulatory and public in nature, not trading or commercial activity.

The court also noted that the farmers’ case depended partly on alleged breaches of Northern Ireland regulations. Determining that issue would require an Irish court to assess administrative and executive acts carried out by a foreign government body within its own jurisdiction.

The High Court therefore held that it lacked jurisdiction over DARD and set aside service of the amended summons and statement of claim on the department. Separate technical objections to service did not need to be decided.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review