Council did not have power to ban live animal exports, says judge

A district council faces having to make a significant payout to exporters of live animals after a High Court ruled that the authority did not have power to impose a temporary ban on shipment.

In Barco De Vapor BV & Ors (t/a Joint Carrier) v Thanet District Council [2014] EWHC 490 (Ch) Thanet suspended the shipment of livestock from the Port of Ramsgate on 13 September 2012, the day after a high-profile incident when three sheep drowned and another 40 had to be humanely killed.

The claimant exporters applied for a judicial review of the decision to suspend shipments and sought an interim injunction lifting the ban. This was granted by Mr Justice Burton on 19 October.

On 29 November Thanet lifted the ban. This ended the judicial review proceedings and led to the transfer of the damages claim to the Chancery Division. The claimants have contended that the ban saw them lose £1.5m.

In the High Court last week Mr Justice Birss concluded: “The animal export trade is not popular. It involves activities which are highly distasteful to many people.

“However the law does not exist only to protect the interests of the popular. I have found that Thanet District Council did not have the authority to impose the ban which prevented the claimants from using Ramsgate port to export livestock.”

The judge said the ban imposed by Thanet was an unjustifiable breach of Art 35 of the TFEU (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union).

“It was a disproportionate decision reached in haste without separate legal advice and breached a fundamental element of the rules governing free trade in the EU,” Mr Justice Birss added.

The amount of compensation payable – to cover the exporters’ lost income incurred as a result of the ban – will be determined at a later date.

Thanet meanwhile said it was exploring the options for appeal with its legal advisers.

Cabinet Member for Business, Corporate and Regulatory Services, Cllr Michelle Fenner, said: “We’re extremely disappointed by the ruling, especially given the recent convictions of some of the exporters for animal cruelty.

“Our position has always been to work within the legal framework to ensure the welfare of animals and to highlight the ill-treatment of animals in transit.”

Cllr Fenner said that the decision to impose the temporary ban in 2012 was “not taken lightly” and insisted that it had been supported by legal advice.

“We took this action at the time to protect the welfare of animals and to protect our members of staff – as there are no suitable facilities in place at the Port,” she added.

“There is little change in the fact that we know our hands are tied by Central Government and Defra, however we will explore the options for appealing the decision and consider this trade to be morally wrong.”