Partridge Farms Ltd, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs

Under the principle of equality, materially different treatment must be objectively justified and proportionate. A compensation scheme based on average healthy-market prices may be rational and efficient for ordinary animals, but it cannot be justified for high-value animals where it produces substantial disparities from healthy market value unless the State establishes that no reasonably practicable alternative exists. Administrative convenience, cost, low incidence and the availability of private insurance do not, without more, establish proportionality. The court must allow the decision-maker a wide margin of appreciation, but must still examine whether the disparity is objectively justified.

Partridge Farms Ltd sought judicial review of the Cattle Compensation (England) Order 2006, which provided compensation for cattle slaughtered for tuberculosis and certain other diseases principally by reference to average market prices for defined categories. The claimant’s high-value pedigree dairy cattle were worth substantially more than the applicable table valuations.

The claimant alleged unlawful discrimination under English law and the general principle of equality in Community law. It also relied on a requirement in a Community directive that breeders be appropriately compensated. The claim was confined at the hearing to the legality of the Order itself. The central issue was whether the differential treatment produced by the table valuation scheme was objectively justified and proportionate.

1. Discrimination established. The Order’s underlying basis was compensation by reference to healthy market value. Table valuations were treated as an efficient approximation for ordinary cattle, but the scheme paid some owners healthy market value or more and paid owners of high-value animals substantially less. That constituted differential treatment.
2. Equality and proportionality. The general principle of equality requires similar situations to be treated alike unless objectively justified. The greater the differential treatment, the greater the burden on the State. Community-law review required proportionality, not merely domestic rationality. The court adopted the distinction in First City Trading between Wednesbury review and the tighter requirement of a fully reasoned, relevant, reasonable and proportionate justification.
3. Justification not proved. The advantages of table valuation—simplicity, speed, reduced subjectivity, lower cost and prevention of over-compensation—justified its use for most cattle but did not, by themselves, justify its application to high-value animals. The relative rarity of such animals did not remove the need to address them, particularly where the individual impact was substantial.
4. The suggested alternatives were not required to be devised by the court. However, the Secretary of State had to show that no sensible, practicable and reasonably reliable alternative existed. The evidence did not establish that individual or specialist valuation, objective breeding and productivity data, approved valuers, or a senior valuation panel were impossible or impractical. Insurance was not generally available in tuberculosis hot-spots and, in any event, requiring high-value owners to insure at their own cost confirmed rather than justified the differential treatment.
5. The Secretary of State had not established objective justification satisfying proportionality. The Order therefore offended the principle of equality. The claimant was entitled to a declaration to that effect; the precise terms were to be settled after the parties had considered the judgment. The remaining grounds were unnecessary to decide.

Permission to apply for judicial review was granted by Lloyd Jones J on 5 April 2007. The claim was heard in the Administrative Court and determined at first instance by Lord Justice Stanley Burnton.