Food Law Blog
Opinions and insights from our Food and Drink team
Search site
Contact our offices
Make an enquiry
Food Law Blog
Opinions and insights from our Food and Drink team
The recent Judgment of Lord Tyre in the case of Angus Growers Ltd v Scottish Ministers Court of Session (Outer House) will make very unpleasant reading for the Rural Payments Agency in many ways.
It is a case of great interest to those advising Fruit and Vegetable Producer Organisations and indeed, I would suggest, those advising clients alleged to have fundamentally breached EU schemes administered by the RPA and Defra . If Lord Tyre’s analysis were replicated for other schemes the ramifications could be very significant.
The background in this case goes all the way back to March 2010 when, after a period of suspension, Angus Growers Ltd’s recognition as a producer organisation under the EU's fresh fruit and vegetable aid scheme was withdrawn (effective 1 January 2008). It was alleged that AG's breaches of scheme requirements had been substantial and constituted serious negligence.
AG sought to set aside the derecognition and were successful both initially and then on appeal in December 2012 before three distinguished Scottish Judges.
It is worth remarking that the Court was unimpressed, to put it mildly, with the conduct of the RPA (operating the scheme on behalf of the Scottish Ministers). Indeed this is one example from the Judgment :
“…… By then (8 March) AG had received an assurance from the RPA that if suitable evidence could be provided to it by the anniversary of the suspension, the suspension could be lifted.
Yet three days later the RPA told AG that its recognition was to be withdrawn. It is remarkable that the RPA should at this point have sprung this upon AG. There had been no threat of that in its recent correspondence with AG. On the contrary, the RPA had told AG of the date by which the evidence necessary for the lifting of the suspension had to be submitted; and AG had not had an opportunity to respond to Ms Lockey's apparent difficulty in understanding a straightforward clause in the Growers' Agreement.”
Lord Malcolm said this:
I have had the advantage of reading drafts of the opinions prepared by your Lordships. I agree with both of them, and with the proposed disposal of this Special Case. I particularly wish to associate myself with your Lordships' comments concerning the conduct of the Rural Payments Agency .
The last sentence is code for being extremely unimpressed!
The Appeal Court decided AG’s breach was not substantial and had not resulted from serious negligence.
Just over three years later the matter was back before the Courts.
This time the members of the PO and the PO itself were claiming damages because of the above events. Lord Tyre was tasked with deciding whether the claim could go ahead in two respects.
Firstl, did the members have the right to sue and, secondly, was the Scottish Ministers’ breach of community law (the withdrawal of the PO’s recognition) sufficiently serious to confer a right to damages under the principles set out in the Francovich case and the conditions for an imposition of state liability fulfilled?
The PO's claim was for legal, management and consultancy costs and Members' claims were for lost scheme payments and lost profits.
The Scottish Ministers argued, amongst other things, that (1) the scheme rules bestowed rights and responsibilities on POs not on their members, and it was not necessary in order to achieve the scheme's objectives to confer such rights on them; (2) the breach was not sufficiently serious; (3) at the time when the decision to derecognise AG was made, there was no authoritative guidance from the courts on certain key issues of interpretation of the Regulations, but the European Court of Justice's judgement in Fruition Po Ltd v Minister for Sustainable Farming and Food and Animal Health (C-500/11) had since demonstrated that their approach was correct.
In summary Lord Tyre decided:
It seems to me this case is significant in a number of ways. Firstly, the Court’s finding that the RPA (Scottish Ministers in fact in this case) owe duties to individual members of the PO. I find that a surprising outcome given we are dealing here with a limited company and set against the backdrop of the Scheme rules which generally set their face against individual entitlements.
Secondly, it’s a welcome reminder that when the RPA badly misapply EU law the Court will, in certain circumstances, consider a remedy. Note too the continued reference to the RPA’s conduct in assessing the seriousness of the breach. A major lesson there for the RPA .
Having decided these preliminary issues the case will now continue. We may well have not heard the last of the Angus Growers case!
Clicking the Accept All button means you are accepting analytics and third-party cookies (check the full list). We use cookies to optimise site functionality and give you the best possible experience. To control which cookies are set, click Settings.
Our use of cookies.
You can learn more detailed information in our Privacy Policy
Some cookies are essential, whilst others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used. The technology to maintain this privacy management relies on cookie identifiers. Removing or resetting your browser cookies will reset these preferences.
Essential Cookies
These cookies enable core website functionality, and can only be disabled by changing your browser preferences.
Google Analytics cookies help us to understand your experience of the website and do not store any personal data. Click here for a full list of Google Analytics cookies used on this site.
Third-Party cookies are set by our partners and help us to improve your experience of the website. Click here for a full list of third-party plugins used on this site.
Comments