Food Standards Agency v Euro Quality Lambs Limited & Anor

The reference in regulation 4(1)(c)(iii) of The Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015 to Article 22(1) of the 2009 Regulation does not restrict the Food Standards Agency’s competence to the five measures listed there. Article 22(1) operates within, and augments, the comprehensive but non-exhaustive enforcement powers in Article 54 of the 2004 Regulation. The FSA therefore remains competent to appoint inspectors under regulation 34 to enforce animal-welfare requirements and issue enforcement notices. The statutory scheme should be construed contextually, having regard to the interaction between the domestic regulations and the EU regulations. A construction producing separate inspector authorisations for different aspects of the same slaughterhouse activity was not required by the legislation.

The Food Standards Agency appealed against a preliminary decision of the First-tier Tribunal concerning four appeals by Euro Quality Lambs Ltd and John and David Penny trading as John Penny & Sons. The First-tier Tribunal had held that the FSA was not the competent authority for enforcement action outside the specific activities listed in regulation 4(1) of The Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015, and had cancelled the Welfare Enforcement Notices.

The Upper Tribunal considered whether the FSA or the Secretary of State was competent to appoint the Official Veterinarians who served the notices under regulation 34. The central issue was the proper interpretation of regulation 4(1)(c)(iii), read with Article 22(1) of the 2009 Regulation and Article 54 of the 2004 Regulation.

1. Appeal allowed. The First-tier Tribunal had erred in law. Its decision was set aside, and the Upper Tribunal remade the decision.
2. Article 54 of the 2004 Regulation is comprehensive but non-exhaustive. Where the competent authority identifies non-compliance, it must take action to ensure that the operator remedies the situation. Article 54(2)(h) preserves the power to take any other appropriate measure.
3. Article 22(1) of the 2009 Regulation is not freestanding. Its five specified powers are provided for the purposes of Article 54 and operate as examples or an augmentation of those powers. The words “may in particular” are permissive and do not limit enforcement to those five measures.
4. Regulation 4(1)(c)(iii) of The Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015 must be read in that statutory and regulatory context. The reference to Article 22(1) does not confine the FSA’s competence to the measures expressly listed in that provision. It clarifies the additional powers available under the parent regulation.
5. The FSA was therefore the competent authority for appointing the Official Veterinarians under regulation 34 for the purposes of issuing the Welfare Enforcement Notices. The inspectors were properly appointed, and the notices were not invalid for want of authority.
6. The conclusion was reached under domestic principles of legislative interpretation. The Tribunal added that, had EU interpretive principles been required, the same result would have followed.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): Appeal allowed. The First-tier Tribunal’s decision dated 13 October 2021 was set aside and the decision was remade.
• First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber): Held that the Food Standards Agency was not the competent authority for the relevant enforcement action and cancelled the Welfare Enforcement Notices.