Infant & Dietic Foods Association Ltd & Ors, Re Judicial Review [2008] ScotCS CSOH_18 (31 January 2008)

Infant & Dietic Foods Association Ltd & Ors, Re Judicial Review [2008] ScotCS CSOH_18 (31 January 2008)

Petitioners established a prima facie case but failed to show that the balance of convenience favoured interim suspension; risk of prosecution is minimal, enforcement is graduated, and practical difficulties outweigh benefits of suspension for a short interim period.

Citation
[2008] ScotCS CSOH_18
Parties
Petitioner: The Infant and Dietetic Foods Association Ltd; Petitioner: John Wyeth and Brother Ltd; Petitioner: Nutricia Ltd; Petitioner: H J Heinz Ltd; Respondent: Scottish Ministers; Interested Party: Advocate General for Scotland
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
31 January 2008
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Interim Suspension Motion
Outcome
motion for interim suspension refused
Legal Topics
Implementation of EU Directives, Statutory Interpretation, Consultation Requirements, Transitional Provisions, Criminal Liability for Regulatory Breach
Administrative Law EU Law Food Law Implementation of EU Directives Statutory Interpretation Consultation Requirements Transitional Provisions Criminal Liability for Regulatory Breach

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Infant and Dietetic Foods Association Ltd

Petitioner

John Wyeth and Brother Ltd

Petitioner

Nutricia Ltd

Petitioner

H J Heinz Ltd

Petitioner

Scottish Ministers

Respondent

Advocate General for Scotland

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Interim Suspension Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula (Scotland) Regulations 2007 are inconsistent with Commission Directive 2006/141/EC
  2. 2 Whether the Scottish Ministers failed to properly consult petitioners regarding changes to transitional provisions
  3. 3 Whether differentiation in law across UK and EU Member States unlawfully restricts free movement of goods

Ratio Decidendi

Petitioners established a prima facie case but failed to show that the balance of convenience favoured interim suspension; risk of prosecution is minimal, enforcement is graduated, and practical difficulties outweigh benefits of suspension for a short interim period.

Court Disposition

motion for interim suspension refused