Ethical Farming Ireland v Minister for Agriculture and Ors

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Ms Justice Nessa Cahill
• Judgment Date: 27 January 2026
• Neutral Citation: [2026] IEHC 42
• Docket Number: Record Number 2022 497 JR

Between

Ethical Farming Ireland

Applicant

and

Minister for Agriculture, Ireland and The Attorney General

Respondents

and

Feirmeoirí Aontuithe Na Héireann Iontaobaithe Teoranta as Trustee of the Irish Farmers' Association and Francis Gorman and Conor O'Leary

Notice Parties

[2026] IEHC 42

Record Number 2022 497 JR

THE HIGH COURT

Judicial review – Cross-examination – Conflict of fact – Applicant seeking to cross-examine witnesses – Whether it was necessary to demonstrate the existence of a genuine conflict of fact

Facts: The applicant, Ethical Farming Ireland, applied to cross-examine witnesses who swore affidavits on behalf of the first respondent, the Minister for Agriculture (the Minister) in the proceedings. The proceedings concerned a claim by the applicant that the Minister was failing to comply with the obligations imposed by Regulation 1/2005 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations (the Regulation) with regard to the live transport of unweaned calves from Ireland to other member states of the European Union. The parties disagreed as to the legal principles that governed the motion and as to how they should be applied. The Minister’s position was that it was necessary to demonstrate the existence of a genuine conflict of fact which needed to be resolved for the determination of a material issue in the proceedings, for cross-examination to be permitted. The applicant contended that a conflict of fact did not need to be shown and that a conflict as to the interpretation of facts, or in relation to the conclusions or inferences to be drawn from facts, is sufficient to warrant cross-examination of a deponent. The parties also disagreed as to whether the criteria for the grant of leave to cross-examine were met, whichever test was applied.

Held by the High Court (Cahill J) that the principles that apply to the exercise of the discretion to direct cross-examination in judicial review proceedings were addressed in two authoritative judgments: Hegarty v An Garda Commissioner [2021] IECA 328 and RAS Medical Ltd v Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland [2019] 1 IR 63. She held that cross-examination is permissible when there is a genuine conflict of fact or when there is a challenge to the credibility or reliability of factual averments (based on documentation or contradictory affidavit evidence, for example), and that conflict or challenge needs to be resolved for the determination of an issue in the proceedings. She held that bare contradictions or denials of facts do not form a basis for cross-examination, nor do challenges to interpretations of facts, inferences, opinions or submissions made on affidavit. She held that there was no basis to order the cross-examination on the affidavits sworn on behalf of the Minister in the proceedings.

Cahill J held that, having considered the relevant legal principles, the issues that required determination in the proceedings, and the topics on which cross-examination had been sought, this was not a case in which it was appropriate to grant the relief sought by the applicant. She found that the applicant had not demonstrated the existence of relevant conflicts of fact or credibility challenges which needed to be resolved for the determination of the issues presented by the pleadings. She held that the just and appropriate order to make, in the exercise the discretion conferred by Order 40, Rule 1 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, was an order refusing to direct the cross-examination of Ms Meaney or Mr Gatica.

Application refused.

JUDGMENT of Ms Justice Nessa Cahill delivered on 27 January 2026

Introduction

1 This judgment determines an application to cross-examine witnesses who swore affidavits on behalf of the first Respondent (“ the Minister”) in these proceedings. The proceedings concern – in broad terms — a claim by the Applicant, a non-governmental organisation, that the Minister is failing to comply with the obligations imposed by Regulation 1/2005 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations (“ the Regulation”) with regard to the live transport of unweaned calves from Ireland to other members states of the European Union.

2 The parties disagree as to the legal principles that govern this motion and as to how they should be applied. The Minister's position is that it is necessary to demonstrate the existence of a genuine conflict of fact which needs to be resolved for the determination of a material issue in the proceedings, for cross-examination to be permitted. The Applicant, on the other hand, contends that a conflict of fact does not need to be shown and that a conflict as to the interpretation of facts, or in relation to the conclusions or inferences to be drawn from facts, is sufficient to warrant cross-examination of a deponent. The parties also disagree as to whether the criteria for the grant of leave to cross-examine are met, whichever test is applied.

3 For the reasons given in this judgment, I believe that the principles which I should apply in exercising my discretion on this motion are that cross-examination is permissible when there is a genuine conflict of fact or when there is a challenge to the credibility or reliability of factual averments (based on documentation or contradictory affidavit evidence, for example), and that conflict or challenge needs to be resolved for the determination of an issue in the proceedings. Bare contradictions or denials of facts do not form a basis for cross-examination, nor do challenges to interpretations of facts, inferences, opinions or submissions made on affidavit. Applying these principles to this motion, it is my view that there is no basis to order the cross-examination on the affidavits sworn on behalf of the Minister in these proceedings.

4 In this judgment I will address the following topics:

• — The Proceedings

• — This Motion

• — Applicable Legal Principles

• — Issues to be Determined in the Proceedings

• — Topics on which Cross-Examination Sought

• — Evidence of Mr Ricardo Gatica

• — Conclusions

The Proceedings

5 By these proceedings, the Applicant seeks declarations that the Minister has failed to comply with his obligations under the Regulation. As the “ competent authority” under the Regulation the Minister has certain powers, including the power to carry out checks on animal welfare.

6 The Applicant is a company limited by guarantee, which operates as a non-governmental organisation which promotes sustainable, ethical farming methods, and campaigns against animal cruelty, in factory farming and live export. The Applicant has for some time expressed concerns about the international trade that relates to the export of live and unweaned calves from Ireland to the European Continent, including in correspondence with the Minister.

7 The Statement of Grounds was filed and served following the grant of leave by the High Court on 18 July 2022 and was verified by the affidavit of Ms Caroline Rowley. The Minister's Statement of Opposition was delivered on 8 March 2023, verified by the affidavit of Ms Lorna Meaney formerly the Head of Division, for Veterinary Export Certification and International Trade at the Department of Agriculture, now the Deputy Chief Veterinary Officer in that Department (“ Ms Meaney's First Affidavit”). A replying affidavit was sworn by Ms Rowley and further affidavits were then sworn on 16 January 2024 by both Ms Meaney (“ Ms Meaney's Second Affidavit”) and by Mr Ricardo Gatica (a veterinary inspector employed by the Minister to carry out the functions of an ‘official veterinarian’ under the Regulation). After that, further affidavits were sworn in the proceedings, including affidavits of discovery, and affidavits exhibiting expert reports of Dr David Pritchard (on behalf of the Minster) and Professor Donald Bloom (on behalf of the Applicant).

This Motion

8 By this motion, the Applicant seeks an order under Order 40, Rule 1 of the Rules of the Superior Courts for leave to cross-examine Ms Meaney and Mr Gatica on their affidavits. The Applicant also applied for leave to cross-examine Dr Pritchard, who had provided three expert reports in support of the Minister. These reports dispute the findings and conclusions of Professor Broom, the expert relied upon by the Respondent. I was informed at the hearing of this application that the parties are seeking to ascertain whether a joint meeting of the experts may be a fruitful means of identifying and perhaps resolving the areas of agreement and disagreement as between them with a view to the possible production of a joint report. I do not therefore address the cross-examination of the expert witnesses in this judgment. This judgment is concerned solely with the factual evidence of the deponents who swore affidavits on behalf of the Minister, primarily Ms Meaney.

9 This motion is grounded on the affidavit of Leonora Mullett, a solicitor in the firm of Philip Lee Solicitors, the solicitors acting for the Applicant in these proceedings. Ms Mullett lists the affidavits that have been sworn on behalf of the Minister and the Applicant and swears that “ it is clear that there are a number of conflicts of fact upon the affidavits in these proceedings that are necessary to resolve in order to determine the proceedings before the court.” The reference to “ conflicts of fact” is notable – the stated premise of the motion is the existence of conflicts of fact. The replying affidavit sworn by Mr Quinn on behalf of the Minister does not address or contradict Ms Mullett's affidavit and merely exhibits correspondence which is said to set out the Minister's position.

10 The correspondence exchanged prior to this motion consists of a request by the Applicant that the Minister consent to the cross-examination sought and an explanation that “ the majority of the averments contained in the affidavit of Ms Meaney are contested by the...