Poultry farmers are ready for a decide’s ruling after changing into embroiled in a High Court struggle with ministers over compensation for birds culled due to avian flu.
A gaggle of producers has taken authorized motion in opposition to Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary Steve Barclay.
Lawyers representing them have advised a decide that Mr Barclay’s division’s “assessment” of compensation was “unlawful” – and {that a} coverage referring to compensation was additionally “unlawful”.
Ministers are preventing the declare and say it ought to be dismissed.
Mrs Justice Hill on Wednesday completed overseeing a trial on the High Court in London.
Barrister Malcolm Birdling, who represented claimant poultry farmers, advised the decide, in a written case define, {that a} secretary of state had powers below animal well being laws to “condemn to slaughter” wholesome birds in an effort to curb the unfold of avian flu topic to an obligation to pay compensation.
He stated cost selections had been made below a coverage that producers could be compensated for “healthy birds actually culled” versus “healthy birds condemned to be culled”.
Mr Birdling argued that the method had been flawed.
Lawyers representing claimant producers stated farmers had suffered “devastating” losses and livelihoods had been “threatened”.
Mark Westmoreland Smith, who represented Mr Barclay, stated the guts of the declare was a “question of statutory construction”.
He stated the “claimants’ construction” would “change the clear meaning” of statutory provision for “no good reason”.
Producers taking motion embody: LJ Fairburn & Son of Alford, Lincolnshire; J W Gate & Son of Wigton, Cumbria; Roy Scaman Farms, of Louth, Lincolnshire; and Yorkshire Farmhouse Eggs of Thirsk, North Yorkshire.
Farmers’ union the NFU is backing claimant firms.
A spokesman stated in an announcement, exterior courtroom earlier than the listening to, that the litigation was an “important case about compensation” for poultry producers affected by hen flu.
He indicated that particular selections had been taken by the Animal and Plant Health Agency, which comes below Mr Barclay’s umbrella.
The spokesman stated producers had been arguing that laws underpinning a compensation scheme had been “misinterpreted” and affected farmers had not been “properly” compensated.
Mrs Justice Hill indicated that she would ship a ruling within the close to future.
