R v Dairy Produce Quota Tribunal ex parte Wynn-Jones
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; 283(6346) 8 August 1987, 643-645(3)Publication details: 1987Subject(s): Summary: QBD 19 May 1987 Application by a farmer(F) for judicial review challenging a Tribunal decision upholding a decision by the Minister of Agriculture rejecting a special case claim under the Dairy Produce Quotas Regulations 1984 for the revision of the base year for the allocation of milk quota . F had relied on bad weather affecting milk production in the base year 1983 as a cause to justify a claim. A requirement of the 1984 regulations was that F`s production must be shown to have been reduced by weather conditions by not less than 15%; the claim was rejected because 15% had not been proved. It appeared that loss of production might have been partly due to health problems in the milking herd. QBD held that the panel were entitled to say that F had not proved his case for the revision of the base year. In addition, even if there had been adequate grounds for challenging the panel`s decision, it was difficult to see what remedy the court could have given the applicant in 1987,the local| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS38063 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 8486-1001 |
QBD 19 May 1987 Application by a farmer(F) for judicial review challenging a Tribunal decision upholding a decision by the Minister of Agriculture rejecting a special case claim under the Dairy Produce Quotas Regulations 1984 for the revision of the base year for the allocation of milk quota . F had relied on bad weather affecting milk production in the base year 1983 as a cause to justify a claim. A requirement of the 1984 regulations was that F`s production must be shown to have been reduced by weather conditions by not less than 15%; the claim was rejected because 15% had not been proved. It appeared that loss of production might have been partly due to health problems in the milking herd. QBD held that the panel were entitled to say that F had not proved his case for the revision of the base year. In addition, even if there had been adequate grounds for challenging the panel`s decision, it was difficult to see what remedy the court could have given the applicant in 1987,the local