Petsafe Ltd & Anor, R (on the application of) v The Welsh Ministers [2010] EWHC 2908 (Admin) (16 November 2010)

Petsafe Ltd & Anor, R (on the application of) v The Welsh Ministers [2010] EWHC 2908 (Admin) (16 November 2010)

The court held that the Welsh Ministers acted within their powers under section 12 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, the Regulations were made for the legitimate aim of promoting animal welfare, and the ban was a suitable and proportionate means of achieving that aim. The interference with free movement of goods under Article 34 TFEU and with possessions under Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR was justified. The Regulations were not irrational, Wednesbury unreasonable, or perverse. The claim for judicial review was dismissed.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 2908 (Admin)
Parties
First Claimant: Petsafe Ltd; Second Claimant: The Electronic Collar Manufacturers Association; Defendant: Welsh Ministers
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Permission and Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Proportionality, Free Movement of Goods, Delegated Legislation, Judicial Review, Regulatory Impact, Article 34 TFEU, Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Administrative Law Animal Welfare Law European Union Law Human Rights Law Proportionality Free Movement of Goods Delegated Legislation Judicial Review +4 more

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Petsafe Ltd

First Claimant

The Electronic Collar Manufacturers Association

Second Claimant

Welsh Ministers

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Permission and Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Animal Welfare (Electronic Collars (Wales)) Regulations 2010 are ultra vires the Welsh Ministers' powers under section 12 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006
  2. 2 Whether the Regulations are a disproportionate restriction on the free movement of goods under Article 34 TFEU
  3. 3 Whether the Regulations breach Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Welsh Ministers acted within their powers under section 12 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, the Regulations were made for the legitimate aim of promoting animal welfare, and the ban was a suitable and proportionate means of achieving that aim. The interference with free movement of goods under Article 34 TFEU and with possessions under Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR was justified. The Regulations were not irrational, Wednesbury unreasonable, or perverse. The claim for judicial review was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to apply for judicial review granted
  • Substantive claim for judicial review dismissed