Supreme Court: Farmer awarded €300k plus interest for seizure of cattle in 2006

About this case:

• Judgment:
  External link

The department had failed to return cattle which had been seized in March 2006, after an agreement with the farmer – and the original sum awarded by the High Court was €304,320, representing a net difference of only €5,000.

Background

In March 2006, the Department of Agriculture seized cattle from Mr John Hanrahan. An agreement was made in April 2006 for the return of so many of the cattle as would bring the total on Mr. Hanrahan’s farm up to a maximum of 328.

This was not done, and instead 223 cattle were sold.

After a hearing on liability, the High Court held that the Department was in breach of contract in failing to return the 223 cattle to Mr. Hanrahan.

After a further hearing on damages, the High Court assessed damages at €304,320 together with interest from the date of judgment.

both parties appealed the assessment of damages; the Department contended that the trial judge erred in two significant respects, while Mr. Hanrahan cross-appealed, contending for “as many as 16 material errors in the judgment”.

Assessment of damages

Mr Justice Donal O’Donnell stated that this was a case which presented more than usual difficulties.

The assessment of damages was conducted on the basis that there were no relevant books, records or even tax returns establishing the profitability or otherwise of the farm during the relevant period. This posed significant difficulties for proceedings designed to assess the damages suffered in respect of a breach of contract.

In addition, it was noted that both parties presented expert evidence as to the calculation of damage, which diverged quite dramatically. On behalf of Mr Hanrahan, it was maintained that he had suffered losses in excess of € 834,638 before interest, while the expert retained by Mr Department estimated the losses at € 1,979, and in effect virtually nil.

Justice O’Donnell stated that this “high ball – low ball” approach was an example of a more widespread phenomenon. It was “not coincidental that it was the independent expert on behalf of Mr Hanrahan whose opinion was that the damages were extremely substantial, and the expert on behalf of Mr Department who considered that in effect there was no loss at all”.

Justice O’Donnell opined that “an expert who merely advances a party’s case rather than his or her own independent opinion may, and perhaps should, be criticised, sometimes severely”.

The Department’s Appeal

The Department advanced two broad arguments. First, it was said that the award in the High Court involved a double recovery, in that the trial judge had awarded €141,320 in respect of the value of the animals and a further €145,000 for loss of profits. Second, the Department challenged the award of €25,000 for damages for distress.

The Department maintained that no amount should have been awarded for loss of income or profits in the period between 2006 and the notional replacement of the herd in 2011.

Alternatively, once an amount for loss of profits had been awarded, no amount should have been awarded for capital.

Accordingly the Department argues not for a partial overlap of damages, but rather that these headings of damage were mutually exclusive.

Justice O’ Donnell stated that the fact that the parties maintained unrealistic positions meant, that once the trial judge had rejected those positions, there was very little evidence upon which the Court could rely. Accordingly, Justice O’Donnell held that he would reject the appeal on this point.

The department also appealed the €25,000 for damages for stress, upset and inconvenience, however Justice O’Donnell stated that damages for breach of contract do not include damages for distress, upset and inconvenience, and held that the Court should set aside this aspect of the award.

Cross-appeal

Mr Hanrahan also contested several issues in a cross appeal:

Award

Delivering the judgment of the Court, Justice O’Donnell held that the award of the High Court should be varied somewhat in allowing Mr Hanrahan the sum of €161,320 in respect of the value of the cattle, (the net figure of € 141,320 allowed by the trial judge together with the €20,000 restored by the decision of this Court) and the sum of €145,000 in respect of the loss of profits.

The Court disallowed the award of €25,000 for stress, upset and inconvenience.

The remaining sums (€5,000 for the late breeding of 25 heifers, €6,000 for the loss of the winter milk bonus and the deduction of €18,000 because Mr. Hanrahan rented out his milk quota) were left unaltered.

Accordingly, the total damages awarded by the Supreme Court totalled €299,320, a net difference of €5,000 from the High Court. Notably, to this sum significant interest would also be added.