Association of Independent Meat Suppliers & Anor, R. (on the application of) v Food Standards Agency [2021] UKSC 54 (08 December 2021)
Citation:Association of Independent Meat Suppliers & Anor, R. (on the application of) v Food Standards Agency [2021] UKSC 54 (08 December 2021).
Subjects invoked: 10. 'Jurisprudence'.100. 'Licensing'.
Rule of thumb:Does EU Law still trump over UK law in some areas, even after Brexit? Can a butcher challenge a 'not fit for human consumption' FSA verdict on their meat in their local Court? if a veterinary inspector declares a bull carcass not to be fit for human consumption then under EU law this is the final decision, and is only challengeable under formal Judicial Review on the grounds of irrationality & illegality. It cannot be challenged in a Justice of the Peace Court on the balance of probabilities with an alternative vet opinion under s9 of the Food Safety Act 1990, with EU law applying over UK law. This EU law system is in place to safeguard food safety at the expense of economics, & EU law has supremacy over UK law in relation to this.
Background facts:
This case invoked the subject of licensing law & jurisprudence.
in a slaughterhouse in the Darlington area a vet inspected a bull and passed it as fit to be slaughtered for human consumption. The Cleveland Meat Company (CMC) then bought this bull carcass at a meat market in Darlington. However, before the Cleveland Meat Company were then allowed to sell it, another vet had to inspect it. In the post-mortem this other Vet saw signs of disease in the bull carcass and stated that it was not fit for consumption. CMC got a 2nd opinion from another Vet who stated that the bull carcass was fine. The Food Standards Agency (FSA) had the final say, and they stated the bull was not fit for sale.
The ‘Association of Meat Suppliers’ and the CMC challenged the FSA’s decision. EU law, Regulations 2009/804 & Regulations 2009/822, both stated that once a single Vet had declared food unfit, this could not be challenged unless the inspector’s decision was irrational/illegal, but, UK law under the Food Safety Act 1990, it stated the bull carcass could be frozen, with a Justice of the Peace Court to decide which of the 2 vets had stronger arguments on balance of probabilities. EU law was stricter than UK law, and the 2 were in direct contrast with each other, and the FSA stated that the EU law system still applied.
Judgment:
The Court held that EU law system applied, challengeable only under Judicial Review, and CMC could not use their expert to challenge the decision in a Justice of the Peace Court on the balance of probabilities under UK law – a more efficient system. The Court further held that the inspector who declared the bull unfit for consumption was not irrational, and there was no illegality either, meaning that the decision could not be overturned by judicial review. The bull was not allowed to be sold and had to be disposed of as animal by-product. This stricter system promotes food safety at the expense of economics in the meat-selling industry.
Ratio-decidendi:
‘judicial review of an OV’s decision on conventional public law grounds … can satisfy the right… to effective judicial protection … consumer protection may justify even substantive negative economic consequences for certain economic operators … the section 9 procedure is not compatible with … Regulations (EC)…’, Lady Hale at 12-13
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.