R (on the application of Association of Independent Meat Suppliers and another) v Food Standards Agency

The EU meat-inspection regime entrusts an Official Veterinarian with ultimate responsibility for deciding whether meat is fit for human consumption. It therefore precludes a national procedure under which a court could replace that technical assessment with its own decision on the merits.

Article 54(3) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 requires an effective means of challenge, but not a full merits appeal. The required intensity of review depends on the measure’s purpose, the specialised nature of the decision, the administrative procedure and safeguards, and the available grounds of challenge. Conventional judicial review can provide effective judicial protection where it examines legality, rationality and evidential sufficiency while respecting the decision-maker’s professional expertise.

An Official Veterinarian refused to apply a health mark to a slaughtered bull’s carcass after pyaemia was suspected. The refusal made it unlawful for Cleveland Meat Company Ltd to market the carcass. The Food Standards Agency subsequently required its disposal as an animal by-product.

The company and a trade association sought judicial review. They contended that the Agency had to use section 9 of the Food Safety Act 1990, enabling a Justice of the Peace to determine whether the carcass should be condemned. Alternatively, they argued that the United Kingdom had failed to provide an adequate means of challenging the veterinarian’s decision. The claim failed in the courts below, including the Court of Appeal: [2017] EWCA Civ 431.

In an earlier judgment, [2019] UKSC 36, the Supreme Court referred questions to the Court of Justice. Following the preliminary ruling in Case C-579/19, EU:C:2021:665, the issues were whether the section 9 procedure was compatible with the EU food-safety regime and whether conventional judicial review supplied the effective judicial protection required by article 54(3) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004.

1. Appeal dismissed unanimously. The answers supplied by the Court of Justice established that section 9 of the Food Safety Act 1990 was incompatible with Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 in this context. Conventional judicial review was an adequate means of challenging the Official Veterinarian’s decision. Lady Hale and Lord Sales gave the joint judgment, with which Lord Hodge, Lady Black and Lord Lloyd-Jones agreed.

2. The EU legislature entrusted the Official Veterinarian with responsibility for ensuring that meat placed on the market is fit for human consumption. That officer possesses the relevant professional qualifications and is required to make a complex technical assessment. The section 9 procedure would impermissibly replace the veterinarian, as the person ultimately responsible for food safety, with a court determining the factual merits. It was also unsuitable as an appeal because the operator could not initiate it and the Justice of the Peace could neither annul the veterinarian’s decision nor remove its legal effects.

3. Article 54(3) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 required a remedy against the veterinarian’s decision. The necessary rigour of judicial control depended on the purpose and effectiveness of the applicable EU measure. Relevant considerations included the specialised subject matter, the extent of administrative discretion, the procedure and safeguards preceding the decision, and the content and available grounds of challenge.

4. A full judicial reconsideration of every factual assessment made during a health-marking inspection was unnecessary. Official Veterinarians had to notify their decisions in writing and give reasons. This enabled affected operators to decide whether to challenge a decision, present their case effectively and obtain judicial scrutiny of its lawfulness. Conventional public-law grounds permitted review for improper purpose, application of an incorrect legal test, irrationality and lack of a sufficient evidential basis. They therefore provided effective judicial protection while respecting the veterinarian’s assigned technical responsibility.

5. The economic effect of the decision on the operator’s property did not require a merits appeal. The important objective of protecting consumers could justify substantial adverse economic consequences for food-business operators. The Agency consequently acted lawfully in declining to invoke section 9, and the United Kingdom had provided an appropriate means of challenge.

1. United Kingdom Supreme Court: Following its earlier reference judgment, [2019] UKSC 36, and the resulting preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice, the court unanimously dismissed the appeal in [2021] UKSC 54.

2. Court of Appeal: The claimants’ case failed in the decision reported as [2017] EWCA Civ 431, from which the appeal was brought.

3. High Court: The judicial review claim failed. No citation or further particulars are stated in this judgment.