Rafferty -v- Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development & ors [2014 IESC 61 (07 November 2014)

Rafferty -v- Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development & ors [2014 IESC 61 (07 November 2014)

The Supreme Court held that 'compensation' under s.17(2) of the Diseases of Animals Act 1966, in its natural and ordinary meaning and in light of constitutional property protections, encompasses payment for total loss, including consequential loss, not merely market value. Any lesser interpretation would constitute an unjust attack on property rights. The appellant is entitled to damages by way of compensation for financial loss and damage, including consequential loss, associated with the cull of his sheep. The matter was remitted to the High Court for assessment of total loss.

Citation
[2008] IEHC 344
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Brendan Rafferty; Defendant/respondent: Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development; Defendant/respondent: Ireland; Defendant/respondent: The Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
07 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; matter remitted for assessment of total loss including consequential loss.
Legal Topics
Compensation for Compulsory Acquisition, Interpretation of Statutes, Property Rights, Consequential Loss, Proportionality, Constitutionality of Legislation
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Compulsory Acquisition Agricultural Law Compensation for Compulsory Acquisition Interpretation of Statutes Property Rights Consequential Loss +2 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 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brendan Rafferty

Plaintiff/appellant

Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development

Defendant/respondent

Ireland

Defendant/respondent

The Attorney General

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the correct interpretation of 'compensation' under s.17 of the Diseases of Animals Act 1966?
  2. 2 Does 'compensation' include consequential loss or is it limited to market value?
  3. 3 Is the statutory scheme for compensation constitutionally compliant regarding property rights?

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that 'compensation' under s.17(2) of the Diseases of Animals Act 1966, in its natural and ordinary meaning and in light of constitutional property protections, encompasses payment for total loss, including consequential loss, not merely market value. Any lesser interpretation would constitute an unjust attack on property rights. The appellant is entitled to damages by way of compensation for financial loss and damage, including consequential loss, associated with the cull of his sheep. The matter was remitted to the High Court for assessment of total loss.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; matter remitted for assessment of total loss including consequential loss.

Orders

  • Declaration that appellant is entitled to damages by way of compensation under s.17(2) of the Act of 1966 for financial loss and damage, including consequential loss and damage associated with the cull of his sheep.
  • Matter remitted to the High Court for assessment of total loss, including consequential loss.