I’m fed up with talking about the weather, but I can console myself with the fact we have grabbed every opportunity so far and progress is not too bad.Foot-and-mouth High Court legal case hangs in the balance
A HIGH Court hearing brought by seven livestock farmers claiming damages for losses caused by the 2007 foot-and-mouth disease outbreak is hanging in the balance.
The case ended yesterday (Wednesday, February 25), with the judge reserving judgment.
The claimants were farmers whose livestock had not been culled but who had suffered heavy losses due to the restrictions put in place in 2007.
The hearing concerned applications that had been made by the defendants in the case - the Institute for Animal Health, Merial Animal Health and Defra - to have the claims either struck out, or for judgment to be given in their favour at this early stage.
Lawyers for the defendants argued that there was no provision in the law for these farmers to be compensated as they had suffered only ‘economic loss’ but not ‘direct physical damage’.
But the application was vigorously defended by lawyers for the farmers, who argued that they should be treated as ‘first line victims’ even, though they had not had livestock culled as a result of the outbreaks.
The group of farmers claim the defendants - IAH and Merial, as operators of the site and Defra Secretary of State Hilary Benn as its licensor and regulator - were negligent in allowing the disease to escape from the Pirbright laboratories.
Their counsel Richard Lissack QC said all three defendants were aware of the ‘inadequate’ state of the site’s 80-year-old drains, from where the virus leaked, for a number of years before the outbreak yet did nothing to rectify it.
He said the outbreak was ‘overwhelmingly likely’ to have been the result of biosecurity errors at Pirbright and was ‘utterly foreseeable’.
The hearing ended with Mr Justice Tugendhat reserving judgment. He is expected to deliver his verdict within the next few weeks.
On Monday, as the hearing opened, he acknowledged the difficulties the outbreak had caused. “I have very much in mind how devastating the consequences of this outbreak surely were to a great many livestock farmers,” he said.
Initially there were 14 claimants in the NFU-backed case. Prior to the three-day hearing, seven Surrey farmers whose livestock were culled in 2007 won out-of-court settlements from IAH and Merial.
The settlements were made without any admission of legal liability by the Pirbright laboratories.
NFU president Peter Kendall said: “The impacts of the FMD outbreak in 2007 were devastating for many farming businesses, and this claim is about getting redress for those farmers.
"If proper biosecurity and containment measures had been in place at Pirbright, this outbreak wouldn’t have happened.
“This is a crucial hearing, and the NFU is giving the farmers bringing these claims our full support. We want those who were responsible for the outbreak to be held to account.”
Share
