Parry v Ministry Of Agriculture Fisheries & Food & Anor

The equality principle in the common organisation of agricultural markets requires comparable producers and situations to be treated fairly, subject to objective justification. Comparability is assessed by reference to the purpose of the particular scheme, not merely by the fact that different conduct may produce the same outcome. A farmer prevented from disposing of heifers by a movement restriction is not in a comparable position with a farmer who voluntarily sells quota. Excluding quota sellers from a temporary priority re-allocation scheme was therefore not discriminatory.

The claimant, a dairy farmer, sold part of his milk quota before a bovine tuberculosis restriction order prevented him from moving cattle. He later exceeded his quota because he could not sell heifers and incurred levy liability.

The defendants operated a temporary priority re-allocation scheme for farmers affected by cattle-movement restrictions. The scheme assisted farmers unable to dispose of heifers, but did not extend the same priority to farmers who had previously sold quota. Mr Justice Buckley dismissed the relevant claim. The claimant appealed on whether the two groups were objectively comparable and had to be treated alike under the equality principle.

1. Appeal dismissed. The scheme’s purpose was to alleviate the problems of farmers prevented by a restriction order from disposing of heifers and consequently exceeding their quota.
2. Comparability had to be assessed by reference to that purpose. A farmer prevented from selling heifers was not relevantly comparable with a farmer who had sold quota for business reasons. The restriction order prevented the former from disposing of cattle, but did not prevent the latter from acquiring quota or require him to sell it.
3. The economic positions differed materially. A farmer retaining involuntarily held heifers remained exposed to continuing milk production, while a quota seller was likely to have the financial ability to buy or lease quota back.
4. Dairy Producer Quota Regulations 1994, paragraph 16(5), was directed to preventing evasion. Its reference to quota sales and cattle purchases did not make those transactions relevantly comparable for the priority scheme.
5. Lord Justice Tuckey agreed with Lord Justice May’s reasoning. Lord Justice Kennedy agreed with both judgments. The appeal was dismissed with costs assessed at £13,398.16.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Parry v Ministry Of Agriculture Fisheries & Food & Anor, [2002] EWCA Civ 864. Appeal dismissed.
• High Court: Mr Justice Buckley dismissed the claimant’s claims, including the claim based on alleged discrimination between quota sellers and heifer buyers.