[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Crop Protection Association Ltd (CPA), R (on the application of) v Ministry Of Agriculture, Fisheries & Food & Anor [2001] EWCA Civ 841 (16 May 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/841.html Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 841

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(ADMINISTRATIVE COURT)
(MR JUSTICE RICHARDS)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Wednesday 16 May 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE KEENE: There are applications before me by the National Farmers Union ("NFU") and a company called ME2 Crop Protection Limited ("ME2") to intervene in this appeal upon terms and in the cross-appeal. Neither of these parties appeared in the hearing below.
2. The NFU's application was the first in time, having been received by the Civil Appeals office on 8 December 2000. The NFU emphasises that it represents some 60,000 farming members in England and Wales. It seeks to emphasise that pesticide prices are up to 30 per cent lower on continental Europe for similar products. As a result of that, a thriving parallel import business exists which is of great importance to its members.
3. The NFU seeks to make submissions on two issues. First, the concept of the "same formulation" and the meaning of that phrase in relation to parallel imports and, secondly, the extent of any national discretion in respect of information required to verify identicality of such products. The NFU, in seeking to intervene, is prepared to accept certain terms. Those include the submission of a written skeleton in advance (and there is already a draft in the court papers). It is prepared to limit its oral submissions to 45 minutes and to undertake not to seek any costs if it were to be successful.
4. The position of ME2 is somewhat similar. Its application was dated 9 January 2001. It seeks to intervene in both the appeal and cross-appeal. It is a company involved in the parallel importation of pesticides, one of a number of such companies albeit there is some dispute as to how many there are involved in this country. It wishes to make submissions on the same two topics as the NFU. It would also be arguing in support of the appeal by MAFF against the ruling by Richards J and would be resisting the cross-appeal. ME2 is prepared to have the same conditions attached to any intervention which may be allowed to it as have been suggested by the NFU.
5. The position of the two existing parties is that MAFF consents to the NFU intervening on the terms indicated, but it objects to any intervention by ME2, broadly because it contends that such intervention would add nothing of value to the court because it would largely duplicate that which would already be presented to the court by the NFU.
6. The position of the remaining party, British Agrochemicals Association Limited, now known as CPA, is that they have no firm views as to which of the two applicants should be allowed to intervene, but they would resist more than one intervening for broadly the same reasons as have been advanced on behalf of the Ministry.
7. I can see that ME2's interest is somewhat different from that of the NFU. They are a parallel importer as opposed to an end consumer as most of the members of the NFU have been. On the other hand, it is clear that the position to be adopted on the appeal and the cross-appeal of the NFU and ME2 would be broadly the same, supporting MAFF and resisting the cross-appeal.
8. It is crystal clear from the draft skeletons already submitted by both proposed intervenors that both would be advancing essentially the same submissions, so much so that it clearly raises the question as to whether ME2 would have anything of value to say that would assist the court in its decision making process. In recognition of this, ME2 is prepared to limit its intervention to written submissions, but Miss Bacon, who as appeared on behalf of ME2, was quite unable to identify the further arguments ME2 would seek to advance which would not already be advanced by the NFU. I have to bear in find that it is of no assistance to the court to have duplicate representations of any kind.
9. Bearing all those factors in mind, I have reached the conclusion that only one intervention should be allowed. There has been no agreement on any joint intervention by the two applicants. The NFU's was the earlier application to intervene but, more importantly, it is a representative body representing, as I have indicated, some 60,000 farming members. Its submissions would substantially cover anything ME2 would seek to say. That latter company is only one of a number of companies, any one of whom could equally seek to intervene in this matter.
10. It seems to me that if the NFU are allowed to intervene on the terms indicated, that would ensure all the relevant standpoints are represented before the Court of Appeal. I can see no justification in allowing more than that.
11. In the circumstances, I have decided that I will allow the application of the National Farmers Union on the terms they have indicated. They will limit their oral representations to 45 minutes and they will undertake not to seek costs if successful. I refuse the application by ME2 for the reasons which I have indicated.
Order: NFU's application allowed; 45 minutes to be allowed for oral submissions; NFU will not seek costs; NFU will serve a final comprehensive skeleton argument two weeks before the intended hearing date to be arranged between the parties and listing office. NFU's costs of application and ME2's costs of application to be borne by them. Appellant's and Respondent's costs application to be costs in the appeal.