CO TIPPERARY farmer John Hanrahan has claimed before the High Court the Department of Agriculture and Food had breached an agreement with him by selling 223 of his cattle for €55,250, a sum which he alleges was less than one-third of their value.
Mr Hanrahan also claims the department allowed the animals to get into poor condition through having them kept at an unsuitable animal-handling facility before the sale. He has brought High Court proceedings arising out of a decision of the then minister for agriculture authorising the seizure of 355 animals from his farm at Ballycurkeen, Carrick-on-Suir, on March 15-16th, 2006.
Department of Agriculture officials contended the seizure arose due to the deteriorating and serious welfare condition of the animals which, it claims, was due to Mr Hanrahan’s alleged inability or refusal to provide adequate fodder for the animals.
In his action, Mr Hanrahan is asking Mr Justice Bryan McMahon to decide liability arising from an agreement of April 2006 between himself and the department which, he claims, was supposed to lead to the return of the majority of his stock.
The Minister denies his claims and has brought a counter-claim alleging Mr Hanrahan owes the department €81,648 for transport and care of the animals.
Opening the case yesterday, Simon Boyle SC, for Mr Hanrahan, said he has been a farmer for the last 40 years with a mainly dairy herd on some 400 acres, of which 254 acres were owned by himself with another 145 he rented .
In late 2005/early 2006, communications took place between Mr Hanrahan and the department about “the situation” on his farm, where he was having difficulty providing feed for his animals because of cash flow problems, counsel said. At about this time, Mr Hanrahan had issued proceedings, yet to be heard, against the department and a creamery co-operative seeking €1.4 million for a separate matter. Arising out of the situation on Mr Hanrahan’s farm, counsel said, the minister ordered the seizure of 355 cattle under protection of animals regulations.
Mr Hanrahan brought a District Court appeal against this seizure and the matter was settled by agreement, involving the department agreeing to return a number of livestock and to sell others. The cost of removal and maintenance of the animals would be deducted.
Mr Hanrahan claims the department failed to honour that agreement which, he believed, meant most of his cattle would be returned. After they were seized, the cattle were kept at a lairage (an animal-handling facility) in Waterford suited to beef cattle for export and not for a dairy herd such as his, it is alleged.
It is claimed the conditions led to irreversible damage to the animals. When the department sold 223 of them 2½ months after the seizure, for a total of €55,250, this represented about one-third of their actual value, it is alleged.
The loss of the animals also meant Mr Hanrahan had to buy new stock in order to maintain his milk quota. He claims the small number of animals returned were in a poor and underfed condition.
The department denies Mr Hanrahan’s claims and pleads it complied with the agreement. It says Mr Hanrahan failed to provide evidence he had a three-week supply of food for the animals which was required before they could be returned to him. It also claims he breached an undertaking to permit monitoring of his farm and obstructed vets in their work. The case is expected to last two weeks.