Emerald Meats Ltd v Minister for Agriculture

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: McCarthy J.,EGAN J.,HEDERMAN J.
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1993
• Neutral Citation: 1992 WJSC-SC 1990
• Docket Number: 262–272/91,[1990 No. 1510P; S.C. Nos. 262 and 272 of 1991]
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 01 January 1993

1992 WJSC-SC 1990

THE SUPREME COURT

HEDERMAN J.

McCarthy J.

Egan J.

262–272/91

EMERALD MEATS LTD v. MIN AGRICULTURE

EMERALD MEATS LIMITED

PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS

AND

MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE & ORS.

DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS

Citations:

EEC REG 4024/89 ART 1(1)

TREATY OF ROME ART 177

COMPANIES (AMDT) ACT 1983 S40(1)

REDMOND V IRELAND UNREP SUPREME 18.7.91 1991/10/2377

Synopsis:

PRACTICE

Order

Execution - Stay - Removal - Judgment - Damages - Appeal pending - Insolvency of successful plaintiff - Defendant held in breach of Community law - Recourse to Court of Justice likely - Responsibility of defendant for insolvency - (262,272/91 - Supreme Court - 16/7/92) - [1993] 2 I.R. 443

|Emerald Meats Ltd. v. Minister for Agriculture|

ORDER

Execution

Stay - Removal - Judgment - Damages - Appeal pending - Insolvency of successful plaintiff - Defendant held in breach of Community law - Recourse to Court of Justice likely - Responsibility of defendant for insolvency - (262,272/91 - Supreme Court - 16/7/92)

|Emerald Meats Ltd. v. Minister for Agriculture|

1 Judgment of McCarthy J.delivered the 16th day of July, 1992.

2 The Plaintiff claims that the Department of Agriculture misapplied Community Regulations with resultant serious loss to the Plaintiff. There was a lengthy trial; the learned trial Judge (Costello J.) in an elaborate judgment, held the Plaintiff entitled to declaratory relief under the Regulations to the effect that the Plaintiff was entitled to an import quota for 1990 under Article 1(1) of Regulation No. 4024/89. According to the judgment "the only argument advanced on the Department's behalf as to why it should not compensate the Plaintiff for the loss it suffered was that the Regulation had merely conferred rights on the Plaintiff to obtain a share in the quota and no claim to damages lies for a declaration of a right. I have already concluded that the Regulation does more than confer "rights" on traders who can show that they imported in accordance with its terms - it also confers duties on national authorities to carry out its terms. ThePlaintiffis therefore entitled to damages for breach by the Department of the duties it owed to the Plaintiff under the Regulation."

3 So far as is relevant to the present application, the Plaintiff obtained judgment against the Minister for Agriculture for £385,922 with interest at the rate of 8% per annum; the amount now due is about£450,000. The Minister sought a stay on the execution of the judgment and this was granted without objection, for a period of 21 days from the date of perfection of the Order (19th July 1991) and in the event of a Notice of Appeal being served until the final determination of the appeal. There had been some delay in preparing the books of the appeal but we are informed that the appeal is now ready for hearing. It has little prospect of a hearing this year. When the appeal is heard, then having regard to the provisions of Article 177 of the Treaty ofRome, it is highly likely that there will have to be a reference to the European Court of Justice in which case the final determination of the appeal will probably be not less than 2 years hence.

4 The Plaintiff moves the Court to remove the stay. The financial position of the Plaintiff company is precarious. It has a permitted overdraft of£300,000 and at the date of swearing of the Affidavit grounding this application the overdraft was approximately £350,000. The Plaintiff's auditors have stated in their audit report for the accounts for the year ending 30th September 1991 that there did exist as of that date a financial situation which under Section 40(1) of the Companies (Amendment) Act 1983would require the convening of an extraordinary general meeting of the company. This is borne out by a reference to evidence given at the trial when it was stated that the company was insolvent. The Plaintiff's caseisthat it was denied...