Jersey Judgment

Classic Herd v. Milk Mktg. Bd. [2014] 2 JLR 487 (11 November 2014)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The producer's claim against the Board for failure to purchase milk at the agreed price is a tort claim for breach of statutory duty, not a contract claim, and is subject to a 3-year limitation period.

Court disposition

claim classified as tort for breach of statutory duty, subject to 3-year limitation period

02

Material facts

Parties

Classic Herd

Applicant

Milk Marketing Board

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Tort Claim for Breach of Statutory Duty / Judgment

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The Board delayed permitting the producer to sell surplus milk to other retailers and failed to purchase milk at the agreed price, constituting a breach of statutory duty.
Respondent
The Board's actions do not amount to a breach of statutory duty and the claim is not valid under the Competition (Jersey) Law 2005.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Competition (Jersey) Law 2005, arts. 8(1) and 16(1)

    Claims for breach of statutory duty under Competition (Jersey) Law 2005 are tort claims, not contract claims.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The producer's claim against the Board for failure to purchase milk at the agreed price is a tort claim for breach of statutory duty, not a contract claim, and is subject to a 3-year limitation period.

Court disposition

claim classified as tort for breach of statutory duty, subject to 3-year limitation period

Source and reliance status

Official court record

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Court record

Judgment

[2014] 2 JLR 487

[ Home ] [ Databases ] [ World Law ] [ Multidatabase Search ] [ Help ] [ Feedback ] [

DONATE ] Jersey Law Reports You are here:

BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Law Reports >> Classic Herd v. Milk Mktg. Bd. [2014] 2 JLR 487 (11 November 2014) URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/JLR/2014/JLR142487.html Cite as: [2014] 2 JLR 487 [ New search ] [ Help ] Classic Herd v. Milk Mktg. Bd. 2014 (2) JLR 487 (11 November 2014) Agriculture-marketing schemes-milk-claims for breach of Competition (Jersey) Law 2005, arts. 8(1) and 16(1) generally tort claims for breach of statutory duty (e.g. Jersey Milk Marketing Board's alleged delay in permitting producer to sell surplus milk to other retailers)-producer's claim against Board concerning failure to purchase milk at agreed price is also tort claim for breach of statutory duty, not contract claim-3-year limitation period The document you wish to view is available to registered users or can be purchased as a PDF. To purchase this document in PDF format or alternatively to Register to purchase membership go to the Jersey Law website via this link: 2014 (2) JLR 487 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/JLR/2014/JLR142487.html

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Competition (Jersey) Law 2005, arts. 8(1) and 16(1)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.