Rooney v Min for Agriculture and Others

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Justice Laffoy
• Judgment Date: 13 July 2004
• Neutral Citation: [2004] IEHC 305
• Court: High Court
• Date: 13 July 2004

[2004] IEHC 305

THE HIGH COURT

RECORD NO. 8836P/1995

ROONEY v. MIN FOR AGRICULTURE & ORS

BETWEEN/

JOHN ROONEY

PLAINTIFF

AND

THE MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND FORESTRY, THE MINISTER FOR FINANCE, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

DEFENDANTS

Citations:

DIR 64/432/EEC

DIR 77/391/EEC

EUROPEAN CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 1

ROONEY V MIN AGRICULTURE 1991 2 IR 539

RSC O.34

RSC O.34 r2

DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACT 1966 S20

DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACT 1966 S22

DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACT 1966 S58

DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACT 1966 S19

DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACT 1966 S58(2)

DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACT 1966 S58(2)(B)

DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACT 1966 S58(2)(C)

KELLY THE IRISH CONSTITUTION 4ED 2023

ESB V GORMLEY 1985 IR 129

BOVINE TUBERCULLOSIS (ATTESTATION OF THE STATE & GENERAL PROVISIONS) ORDER 1978 SI 256/1978 ART 13

HOWARD V MIN AGRICULTURE 1990 2 IR 260

BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS (ATTESTATION OF THE STATE & GENERAL PROVISIONS) ORDER 1989 SI 308/1989 ART 3

DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACT 1966 S3

GRENNAN V MIN AGRICULTURE UNREP MURPHY 4.10.1995 1995/18/4654

BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS (ATTESTATION OF THE STATE & GENERAL PROVISIONS) ORDER 1989 SI 308/1989 ART 12

BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS (ATTESTATION OF THE STATE & GENERAL PROVISIONS) ORDER 1989 SI 308/1989 ART 12(1)

BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS (ATTESTATION OF THE STATE & GENERAL PROVISIONS) ORDER 1989 SI 308/1989 ART 12(2)

BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS (ATTESTATION OF THE STATE & GENERAL PROVISIONS) ORDER 1989 SI 308/1989 ART 12(5)

DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACT 1966 S20(A)(I)

BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS (ATTESTATION OF THE STATE & GENERAL PROVISIONS) ORDER 1989 SI 308/1989 ART 11(2)

BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS (ATTESTATION OF THE STATE & GENERAL PROVISIONS) ORDER 1989 SI 308/1989 ART 13(3)

BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS (ATTESTATION OF THE STATE & GENERAL PROVISIONS) ORDER 1989 SI 308/1989 ART 13(4)

DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACT 1966 S25

BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS (ATTESTATION OF THE STATE & GENERAL PROVISIONS) ORDER 1989 SI 308/1989 ART 8

BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS (ATTESTATION OF THE STATE & GENERAL PROVISIONS) ORDER 1989 SI 308/1989 ART 8(2)

BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS (ATTESTATION OF THE STATE & GENERAL PROVISIONS) ORDER 1989 SI 308/1989 ART 8(3)

HENDERSON V HENDERSON 1843 3 HARE 100

CARROLL V RYAN & ORS 2003 1 IR 3092003 2 ILRM 1

DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACT 1966 S22

DISEASE OF ANIMALS ACT 1966 S20(A)(II)

BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS (ATTESTATION OF THE STATE & GENERAL PROVISIONS) ORDER 1989 SI 308/1989 ART 13(1)

PEPPER V HART 1993 AC 593

CRILLY V FARRINGTON LTD 2001 3 IR 251

CONSTITUTION ART 43

CONSTITUTION ART 40.3

DREHER V IRISH LAND COMMISSION 1984 ILRM 94

ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACT 1927 S45

DEC 90/424/EEC ART 24 PAR 3

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 2003

DIR 78/52/EEC ART 3.2

BROWNE V BORD PLEANALA 1991 2 IR 2091989 ILRM 865 1989/4/918

O'NEILL V MIN AGRICULTURE 1997 2 ILRM 435

FRANCOVICH & BONIFACI V ITALY 1991 ECR 5357, 1991 2 CMLR 66

DILLENKOFER V GERMANY 1996 ECR 4845, 1996 3 CMLR 469

DIR 85/337/EEC

DIR 78/52/EEC

MCKERRING V MIN FOR AGRICULTURE 1989 ILRM 82

ROONEY V MIN AGRICULTURE 2001 2 ILRM 37

Abstract:

Agriculture - Cattle - Damages - Whether plaintiff’s cattle unlawfully restricted - Whether defendants trespassed on plaintiff’s property and chattels - Disease of Animals Act 1996 - Bovine Tuberculosis (Attestation of State and General Provisions) Order 1989

Facts: The plaintiff was a lay litigant. He claimed damages for loss arising from the alleged unlawful restriction of the plaintiff’s herd and trespass to his property and chattels.

Held by Laffoy J. in dismissing the plaintiff’s proceedings that: the plaintiff had not established an actionable wrong on the part of the defendants; he was not entitled to invoke the European Convention to support his claim; and he not established State liability for damages.

Reporter: R.W.

The Plaintiff's case as pleaded

2 "1. The Plaintiff is a Farmer. The first, second and third Defendants are actively involved in the government through the workings of the government or in the offering of legal advice to the government.

2 The statement of claim delivered on the 6 ^th day of November, 1989 by John Rooney in Rooney v. The Minister for Agriculture and Food [1987] No. 1120 Sp. Ct. 6 is included in this statement of claim (copy duly signed, annexed to same).

3 Statement of claim delivered on the 2 ^nd day of March, 1993 by John Rooney in Rooney v. The Minister for Agriculture and Food 1993 No. 706P is included in this statement of claim (copy duly signed, annexed to same).

4 That the Bovine TB Eradication Scheme is being operated, contrary to Bunreacht na hÉireann, contrary to the law of the European Union and Directives 64/432/EEC (as amended); 77/391/EEC, contrary to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights andFundamental Freedoms and, mal fides is specifically alleged.

5 That the Bovine TB Eradication Scheme as operated under the Bovine Tuberculosis (Attestation of the State and General Provisions) Order, 1989, is being operated contrary to the objectives of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1966(a consolidating Act) and further that the Bovine Tuberculosis (Attestation of the State and General Provisions) Order, 1989, is ultre vires the Disease of Animals Act, 1966and, that mal fides is specifically alleged.

6 The Plaintiff's cattle herd has been unlawfully restricted from the 7 ^th day of April, 1993 and, mal fides is specifically alleged.

7 That the Defendants, their servants or agents have maliciously interfered with and damaged the Plaintiff's farming business causing loss and damage and further that the Plaintiff has been deprived of the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions contrary to Article 1 of ProtocolNo. 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights andFundamental Freedoms.

8 That the Defendants, their servants or agents have breached the Plaintiff's constitutional right to privacy in their manner of dealing with and passing of private and confidential sensitive constitutional communications dated 8 ^th March, 1994.

9 That the Defendants, their servants or agents have damaged the Plaintiff's reputation causing loss and damage.

10 That the Defendants, their servants or agents have trespassed upon the Plaintiff's property and chattels causing loss and damage.

AND THE PLAINTIFF CLAIMS

2 (1).For loss and damages suffered at the hands of the Defendants, their servants or agents.

(2) Damages for Defendants, their servants or agents breaching of the Rule of Law.

3 (3).Costs: being time and monies expended in preparing for litigation."

The 1987 proceedings referred to in para. 2 of the statement of claim resulted in a judgment of the Supreme Court delivered on 19 ^thDecember, 1991, which is reported as Rooney v. Minister for Agriculture and Food[1991] 2 I.R. 539. For the sake of brevity, I will refer to these proceedings as " Rooney No.1".

The relief claimed in these proceedings is damages. In broad terms, damages are claimed under two headings. First, there is a claim for damages for loss arising from the alleged unlawful restriction of the plaintiff's herd and trespass to his property and chattels. Secondly, damages are claimed in relation to the allegation made in para. 8 of the statement of claim, which is a discrete allegation which is indirectly linked to the remainder of the allegations made by the plaintiff. That allegation will be considered separately at the end of this judgment.

In their defence delivered on 26 ^th September, 1996, the defendants pleaded that the plaintiff's claims "are barred and/or amount to an abuse of the Court process by reason of the principle of res judicata and/or issue estoppel and/or are the subject of existing and separate proceedings". Specifically it was pleaded that the plaintiff is not entitled to include the claims in Rooney No. 1 and in the 1993 proceedings in these proceedings. In the course of the hearing of these proceedings, the plaintiff acknowledged that he could not, in these proceedings, relitigate the issues raised in Rooney No. 1 or in the 1993 proceedings. The plaintiff informed the court that the 1993 proceedings "are no longer in existence". Without prejudice to the res judicata plea, the defendants traversed each allegation made by the plaintiff. Further, it was pleaded that the acts of the defendants were justified, having been carried out in accordance with lawful authority conferred by the Oireachtas, the Constitution and European legislation. Finally, it was pleaded that any loss or damage which the plaintiff has incurred was caused solely by his own acts and omissions.

The foregoing was the state of the pleadings when the hearing of these proceedings commenced on 11 ^th May, 2004. The defendants had not sought particulars of any matter alleged by the plaintiff in his statement of claim. In particular, particulars had not been sought of the manner in which it was alleged that the "Bovine TB Eradication Scheme" is being operated contrary to the Constitution, the law of the European Union or the European Convention on Human Rights (the European Convention) or the objectives of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1966(the Act of 1966). Particulars were not sought of the basis on which it was alleged that the plaintiff's herd was unlawfully restricted, nor were particulars sought of the bases on which the various allegations of bad faith were founded. During the course of the hearing, which ran for twelve days, the bases on which the plaintiff was alleging wrongdoing on the part of the defendants and claiming compensation were identified.

During the course of the hearing, it became apparent that the defendants had not fully complied with orders for discovery. I am satisfied that the failure was remedied over the Whit Vacation and that the plaintiff has not been prejudiced.

Decision of the Supreme Court in Rooney No. 1.

The factual background to ...