Sovio Wines Ltd, R (on the application of) v Food Standards Agency

Sovio Wines Ltd, R (on the application of) v Food Standards Agency

The product, though not a wine under the Base Regulation due to its alcohol content and production method, was labelled and presented as 'semi-sparkling wine' and 'premium Spanish wine', thus purporting to be within the regime. This brought it within the regulatory scope for enforcement. The First Defendant had jurisdiction to issue the Movement Control Notice. No legitimate expectation arose as the representations were either conditional or contradicted by other advice, and any such expectation would yield to statutory duties. The application for judicial review was refused.

Parties
Claimant: Sovio Wines Limited; First Defendant: The Food Standards Agency (Wine Standards Branch); Second Defendant: Richard Perkins
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Regulatory Authorities, Legitimate Expectation, Labelling and Marketing of Wine Products, Enforcement of EU Regulations, Abuse of Power
Administrative Law European Union Law Food Law Jurisdiction of Regulatory Authorities Legitimate Expectation Labelling and Marketing of Wine Products Enforcement of EU Regulations Abuse of Power

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sovio Wines Limited

Claimant

The Food Standards Agency (Wine Standards Branch)

First Defendant

Richard Perkins

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First Defendant had jurisdiction to issue the Movement Control Notice under the Base Regulation for products not meeting the definition of wine
  2. 2 Whether the enforcement action breached the Claimant’s legitimate expectation based on prior representations
  3. 3 Whether the product’s labelling brought it within the regulatory regime despite its composition

Ratio Decidendi

The product, though not a wine under the Base Regulation due to its alcohol content and production method, was labelled and presented as 'semi-sparkling wine' and 'premium Spanish wine', thus purporting to be within the regime. This brought it within the regulatory scope for enforcement. The First Defendant had jurisdiction to issue the Movement Control Notice. No legitimate expectation arose as the representations were either conditional or contradicted by other advice, and any such expectation would yield to statutory duties. The application for judicial review was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review refused