Rooney v Minister for Agriculture and Food

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 19 December 1991
• Date: 19 December 1991
• Docket Number: [S.C. Nos. 111 of 1990 and 224 of 1991]
• Court: Supreme Court

Supreme Court

[S.C. Nos. 111 of 1990 and 224 of 1991]

Rooney v. Minister for Agriculture and Food

John Rooney

Plaintiff

and

The Minister for Agriculture and Food, The Minister for Finance, The Taoiseach, Ireland and The Attorney General, Donal McDaid, Patrick Delaney, The Irish Farmers Association, E.R.A.D., The Management Board for Disease Eradication, Alan Gillis, Patrick Delaney, Denis Coffey, Terence O'Connor, Denis G. Hickey, James Noonan and John Malone as board members of E.R.A.D., The Minister for the Public Service and The Ombudsman

Defendants

Cases mentioned in this report:—

Howard v. The Minister for Agriculture and Food [1990] 2 I.R. 260.

McKerring v. The Minister for Agriculture [1989] I.L.R.M. 82.

Pine Valley Developments v. The Minister for the Environment [1987] I.R. 23.

The State (Sheehan) v. The Government of Ireland [1987] I.R. 550.

Statute - Interpretation - Statutory provisions providing for fixing of compensation to be paid to herd owners whose diseased animals are slaughtered - State establishing an extra statutory scheme - Scheme provided for payment of grants to such herd owners - Amount of grant fixed by the State - Plaintiff claimed extra statutory scheme financially disadvantageous to him - Whether State obliged to implement the provisions of the Act - Bovine Tuberculosis (Attestation of State and General Provisions) Order, 1978 (S.I. 256) - Diseases of Animals Act, 1966 (No. 6), ss. 18, 20, 22 and 58.

Special Case.

Order 34, r. 1 of the Rules of the Superior Courts provides:—

"The parties to any cause or matter may concur in stating the questions of law arising therein in the form of a special case for the opinion of the court. Every such special case shall be divided into paragraphs numbered consecutively, and shall concisely state such facts and documents as may be necessary to enable the court to decide the questions raised thereby. Upon argument of such case the court and the parties shall be at liberty to refer to the whole contents of such documents, and the court shall be at liberty to draw from the facts and documents stated in any such special case any inference, whether of fact or law, which might have been drawn therefrom if proved at trial."

Order 34, r. 2 of the Rules of the Superior Courts provides that if it appears to the court that there is in any cause or matter a question of law, which it would be convenient to decide before any evidence is given or any question of fact is tried the court may direct such question of law to be raised for the opinion of the court by special case and all such further proceedings as the decision of such question of law may render unnecessary may thereupon be stayed.

Order 34, r. 3 of the Rules of the Superior Courts provides that every special case shall be printed by the plaintiff and signed by the several parties.

By a statement of claim delivered on the 6th November, 1989 (as amended) the plaintiff claimed inter alia:—

"(1) A declaratory order that he [was] legally and constitutionally entitled to compensation under and in accordance with the Diseases of Animals Act, 1966, and also under and in accordance with the Bovine Tuberculosis (Attestation of the State and General Provisions) Order, 1978, (S.I. 256).

(2) That a special case be tried as follows:—

That the system of grant payments as operated by the first defendant in his implementation of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1966, through the disease eradication schemes are unconstitutional and illegal, when they are used as an alternative to compensation, or in a manner that fails to comply with the compensation provisions of the Irish Constitution."

On the 19th February, 1990, the High Court (Barron J.) having heard an application by way of notice of motion dated the 2nd February, 1990, made an order striking out the action against the fifth, sixth, seventh and last defendants. The plaintiff served a notice of appeal dated the 14th March, 1990, against this order.

By notice of motion dated the 18th July, 1990, the plaintiff sought liberty to enter judgment against the eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth defendants. Further by notice of motion dated the 23rd July, 1990, the plaintiff sought an order pursuant to O. 34 of the Rules of the Superior Courts that the special case as claimed in the statement of claim be heard by the High Court. On the 30th July, 1990, the High Court (Costello J.) adjourned the hearing of both motions pending the hearing of the appeal against the order of the High Court (Barron J.) dated the 19th February, 1990.

On the 12th October, 1990, pursuant to notice of appeal dated the 14th March, 1990, the Supreme Court (Griffin, Hederman and O'Flaherty JJ.), pursuant to O. 34 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, adjourned the hearing of the appeal and directed that the claim in the first two paragraphs of the plaintiff's statement of claim be tried as a special case in the High Court between the plaintiff and the first, second, third and fourth defendants.

The special case dated the 12th December, 1990, was heard by the High Court (Lavan J.) on the 18th, 22nd, 23rd and 24th January, 1991. Judgment was reserved. On the 16th May, 1991, the High Court (Lavan J.) dismissed the plaintiff's claim.

The plaintiff appealed against the judgment and order of the High Court. The facts and relevant statutory provisions are set out in the judgment of O'Flaherty J. infra. The appeal, by notice of motion dated the 6th June, 1991, was heard by the Supreme Court on the 26th November, 1991.

Section 22 of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1966, provides inter alia, that:—

"The Minister shall, subject to section 58, pay compensation for animals . . . taken possession of on his behalf pursuant to an order under section 20."

Section 20 provides that:—

"The...