Parry v Ministry Of Agriculture Fisheries & Food & Anor [2002] EWCA Civ 864 (23 May 2002)

Parry v Ministry Of Agriculture Fisheries & Food & Anor [2002] EWCA Civ 864 (23 May 2002)

Farmers prevented from disposing of heifers due to a restriction order are not in a comparable situation to those who have sold quota prior to such an order. The scheme's purpose is to alleviate problems for the former, not the latter. The differential treatment is objectively justified and not discriminatory under EU law.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 864
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Parry; Respondent/first Defendant: Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food; Second Defendant: Welsh Office Agriculture Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order of Mr Justice Buckley
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Milk Quotas, Discrimination, Principle of Equality, Compensation, Judicial Review
Administrative Law European Union Law Agricultural Law Milk Quotas Discrimination Principle of Equality Compensation Judicial Review

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Parry

Appellant/claimant

Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food

Respondent/first Defendant

Welsh Office Agriculture Department

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order of Mr Justice Buckley

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the extension of the milk quota re-allocation scheme discriminated unfairly between farmers who sold quota and those who acquired heifers prior to a restriction order
  2. 2 Whether the scheme's operation breached the principle of equality under EU law

Ratio Decidendi

Farmers prevented from disposing of heifers due to a restriction order are not in a comparable situation to those who have sold quota prior to such an order. The scheme's purpose is to alleviate problems for the former, not the latter. The differential treatment is objectively justified and not discriminatory under EU law.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs assessed at £13,398.16