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

Under the Community-law principle of equality, similar situations must not be treated differently unless the differentiation is objectively justified. A generally applicable measure may affect groups differently without being discriminatory where it rests on objective criteria and addresses a problem of general public importance. For cattle slaughtered after testing positive for tuberculosis, the relevant class comprised owners of cattle whose true post-diagnosis value was salvage value. A table scheme paying all owners more than salvage value did not discriminate merely because owners of high-value cattle suffered greater losses. In any event, the scheme’s aims of reducing overcompensation, inconsistency, bureaucracy and delay supplied objective justification. The measure fell within the decision-maker’s broad margin of appreciation and was not manifestly inappropriate.

Partridge Farms challenged the table-valuation compensation scheme in the Cattle Compensation (England) Order 2006 for cattle slaughtered because of bovine tuberculosis. It argued that the scheme substantially undercompensated owners of high-value pedigree cattle while giving average or lower-value cattle owners compensation closer to, or exceeding, healthy market value.

On 14 July 2008, Stanley Burnton LJ in the Administrative Court declared that the Order breached the Community-law principle of equality because it made no adequate provision for especially valuable pedigree cattle. The Secretary of State appealed. The central issues were whether the scheme discriminated against owners of high-value cattle and, if so, whether that treatment was objectively justified.

Lord Justice Lawrence Collins delivered the judgment, with Lord Justices Keene and Ward agreeing. The appeal was allowed.

1. The compensation scheme formed part of the measures for controlling bovine tuberculosis in the context of Community law. The equality principle therefore applied to it. The relevant directive required appropriately adjusted compensation only as a condition for obtaining an EC contribution, not as a freestanding obligation to pay compensation at a particular level.
2. The equality inquiry had two stages: whether similar situations were treated differently, and, if so, whether the differentiation was objectively justified. The principle applies to national measures taken in the context of Community measures. General legislation need not be tailored to every difference between the persons or economic units affected. Differential effects do not establish discrimination where objective criteria support a comprehensive solution to a problem of general public importance.
3. There was no discrimination. Cattle slaughtered after being identified as affected with tuberculosis had, in their diseased condition, a true value represented by the salvage value of the carcass. The Order granted all owners of pedigree cattle compensation above salvage value. The fact that owners of high-value cattle suffered greater losses did not amount to discriminatory treatment.
4. The Order did not establish a general principle of compensation by individual healthy market value. Its exceptional provisions for buffalo or bison and for inadequate or unavailable sales data did not alter that conclusion. The scheme’s purpose was to depart, so far as possible, from individual valuation.
5. Alternatively, any discrimination would have been objectively justified. The Final Regulatory Impact Assessment identified legitimate aims including reducing overcompensation, improving consistency, reducing bureaucracy and delay, protecting public funds and supporting disease control. The court was not an appellate tribunal reviewing ministerial policy on its merits. The Secretary of State had a broad margin of appreciation, and the scheme was neither inappropriate nor manifestly inappropriate.
6. The difficulty of defining high-value cattle in a generally acceptable and administrable way further reinforced the conclusion. The order declaring a breach of equality was set aside and the appeal allowed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — The Secretary of State’s appeal was allowed. The Administrative Court’s declaration was set aside.
• Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court — On 14 July 2008, Stanley Burnton LJ declared that the Cattle Compensation (England) Order 2006 breached the Community-law principle of equality.