Shepherd v Scottish Ministers For Judicial Review [2001] ScotCS 102 (1 May 2001)

Shepherd v Scottish Ministers For Judicial Review [2001] ScotCS 102 (1 May 2001)

The court held that the respondents' decision to slaughter the petitioner's livestock was proportionate to the risk posed, was supported by expert veterinary advice, was in the public interest, and was accompanied by compensation. The petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case of disproportionate interference, and the balance of convenience favoured the respondents. Interim orders were refused.

Citation
[2001] ScotCS 102
Parties
Petitioner: Christopher Shepherd; Respondents: The Scottish Ministers
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
01 May 2001
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Interim Orders (suspension of Notice and Slaughter Order)
Outcome
Interim orders refused; leave to reclaim refused.
Legal Topics
Proportionality, Deprivation of Property, Public Interest, Compensation for Slaughter, Foot and Mouth Disease Control
Administrative Law Human Rights Law Animal Health Law Proportionality Deprivation of Property Public Interest Compensation for Slaughter Foot and Mouth Disease Control

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher Shepherd

Petitioner

The Scottish Ministers

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Interim Orders (suspension of Notice and Slaughter Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed slaughter of livestock pursuant to the Animal Health Act 1981 and related orders constitutes a disproportionate interference with property rights under Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights
  2. 2 Whether the balance of convenience favours granting interim orders suspending the slaughter

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the respondents' decision to slaughter the petitioner's livestock was proportionate to the risk posed, was supported by expert veterinary advice, was in the public interest, and was accompanied by compensation. The petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case of disproportionate interference, and the balance of convenience favoured the respondents. Interim orders were refused.

Court Disposition

Interim orders refused; leave to reclaim refused.

Orders

  • Refusal of interim orders suspending the operation of the Notice and the order to slaughter.
  • Refusal of leave to reclaim against the refusal of interim orders.