Reg. v. Dairy Produce Quota Tribunal for England and Wales, Ex parte Caswell

The appellants, dairy farmers, sought substantive judicial review relief quashing a decision of the Dairy Produce Quota Tribunal which had awarded wholesale quota for their farm at Pantdwfn on the basis of the number of cows expected to be milked at the end of March 1985. The court held that the tribunal had erred in law in confining its assessment to that limited point in time rather than having regard to future production potential, but refused substantive relief because of undue delay.

The House of Lords applied R.S.C., Ord. 53, r. 4 and section 31 of the Supreme Court Act 1981, agreeing with the Court of Appeal in Reg v Stratford-on-Avon District Council, Ex parte Jackson that where an application for leave is not made promptly and within three months there is "undue delay" for the purposes of section 31(6). Even where leave has been granted, the court may still refuse substantive relief if granting it would be detrimental to good administration. On the facts, reopening quota allocations after a long lapse would be detrimental to good administration and the judge's refusal of substantive relief was not displaced on appeal.

The appellants, trading as Mr A. R. and Mrs E. E. Caswell, are dairy farmers who applied for additional wholesale dairy quota for their farm Pantdwfn by way of an exceptional hardship claim under the Dairy Produce Quotas Regulations 1984 (S.I. 1984 No. 1047). The Dairy Produce Quota Tribunal determined in February 1985 that quota should be awarded on the basis of expected production from about 70 cows by the end of March 1985, even though the farm had housing for a larger herd. The appellants sought judicial review, arguing that the tribunal had erred in law by limiting its assessment to that point in time.

Procedural history:

• Leave to apply for judicial review was granted by Mann J on 21 October 1987.
• Popplewell J heard the substantive application and, in an ex tempore judgment, held that the tribunal had erred in law; however, on 25 November 1988 he refused substantive relief by way of mandamus or certiorari because of delay and granted only a declaration of error.
• The appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal which dismissed their appeal ([1989] 1 W.L.R. 1089).
• Leave to appeal to the House of Lords was given and the appeal was heard, the House of Lords affirming the Court of Appeal on 17 May 1990.

Nature of the claim and relief sought: The appellants sought substantive judicial review relief (quashing and mandamus/certiorari) to remedy what they contended was the tribunal's legal error in assessing quota only by reference to the number of cows at a particular past date, and thereby obtain additional quota for their farm.

Issues framed by the court: (i) the legal relationship between R.S.C., Ord. 53, r. 4 and section 31(6) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 and the meaning of "undue delay"; (ii) whether the appellants had delayed unduly and, if so, whether granting the relief sought would cause substantial hardship, prejudice or be detrimental to good administration under section 31(6); and (iii) whether the judge's exercise of discretion in refusing substantive relief should be disturbed.

Reasoning and conclusion: The House of Lords agreed with the Court of Appeal in Ex parte Jackson that an application for leave not made promptly and within three months amounts to undue delay for the purposes of section 31(6). Even if there is good reason to extend time under Order 53, r. 4, section 31(6) still permits refusal of substantive relief on grounds including detriment to good administration. On the evidence (including that allocation of quota involves a finite resource and that many exceptional hardship appeals had been decided), the judge’s factual conclusion that reopening allocations after such delay would be detrimental to good administration was not open to interference. Accordingly substantive relief was refused despite the tribunal's legal error.

Appeal dismissed. The House of Lords held that the tribunal had erred in law in restricting its assessment of quota to the anticipated number of cows at the end of March 1985, but that the appellants had unduly delayed in bringing their application. Applying R.S.C., Ord. 53, r. 4 and section 31(6) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (as explained in Reg v Stratford-on-Avon District Council, Ex parte Jackson), the court concluded that granting substantive relief would be detrimental to good administration by necessitating re-opening of quota allocations; the judge’s discretionary refusal of substantive relief was accordingly upheld.

Leave to apply for judicial review granted by Mann J (21 October 1987). Popplewell J (25 November 1988) found a legal error by the tribunal but refused substantive relief because of undue delay, granting only a declaration. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellants' appeal ([1989] 1 W.L.R. 1089). The House of Lords affirmed the Court of Appeal on 17 May 1990 ([1990] UKHL 5).