I would first like to say that I support the farmers in their protest over beef prices.

As a farmer myself and a solicitor who deals with farmers and their families on a daily basis, I see firsthand the damage the low beef prices are doing to farmers and rural communities.

Beef farmers are stressed, under financial pressure and struggling to survive and provide for their families. I see the effect that it is having on their mental health. Something has to give.

Disrupt

While everyone is entitled to peaceful protest, legally, these protests should not disrupt the factories’ business, such as people entering or leaving factories.

If you think about it, farmers would not appreciate another farmer blockading their farm entrance stopping people and machinery entering or leaving the farm.

The way to resolve issues generally is to talk it out and try to reach some sort of compromise or alternatively look for the courts to make a legally binding decision on the matter after hearing both sides.

Today, meat plants were granted temporary High Court injunctions in order to restrain protesters from blockading their factories or intimidating staff and hauliers.

IFA blockade

This has happened before, during an IFA blockade of meat factories.

Back in early 2000, farmers, under the umbrella of the IFA, had been protesting outside meat plants in a dispute over the imposition of a veterinary inspection fee levy on suppliers using the plants.

An application for an interlocutory injunction to halt the picketing was applied for on behalf of 16 of the meat plants.

The injunction was granted restraining the IFA, its then president Mr Tom Parlon and his deputy Mr Raymond O’Malley, and any persons with notice of the order from picketing at the meat plants.

The order was not complied with and the High Court ordered the imposition of a fine of £100,000 a day against the IFA for breaching the injunction and also awarded costs against the association.

The fine was subsequently increased to £500,000 per day. The judge also ordered the property of the IFA be sequestered, which was estimated at the time to be worth £5m.

Threat of injunction

This might explain why the Beef Plan Movement was distancing itself from the new protests, with the threat of an injunction hanging over the organisation and named individuals within the organisation.

Back in 2000, Mr Parlon, Mr O’Malley and almost all the other 60 council officers resigned their positions shortly after the increased fine was imposed. They decided to obey the court order.

The dispute was later settled, with the meat inspection charge which led to the demonstrations removed and an increase in beef payments to farmers.

Disproportionate

It was felt at the time that the fines were disproportionate to the action complained of. However, the justification given was that the courts are the ultimate forum for the enforcement of the law.

It was open to the farmers to take court action against the meat companies if they claimed that the companies were acting in an anti-competitive and illegal way.

Of course, farmers would be worried about the cost implications of taking such action, but costs are generally at the discretion of the courts, which typically take a sympathetic approach to not-for-profit groups.

Instead, it was seen that the farmers took the law into their own hands by blockading the factories rather than instituting legal proceedings for the actions complained of.

Severe response

For this reason, it was predictable that the courts would respond severely to the farmers’ actions.

A temporary injunction restraining somebody from doing something can be obtained very quickly, even outside of normal court hours.

A court order can be obtained ordering an organisation, named individuals or any person with notice of the order from picketing a factory.

Contempt of court for breach of a court order is punishable in a variety of ways including imprisonment until the persons involved purge their contempt.

However, in the IFA’s case, the judge said he had no intention of imprisoning and making a martyr out of some member of the farming community and would continue to impose fines until it hurt and until the court order was obeyed.

The judge had no intention of making a martyr out of some member of the farming community

Individual farmers who disrupt business at the factories could leave themselves open to similar legal action and to being held personally liable for any claimed losses by the meat plants.

Injunctions are an aggressive move by the meat factories.

If a working solution cannot be found, it is still open to the Beef Plan Movement and/or individual farmers to further engage in talks or alternatively to take court action to further their cause and, as pointed out, the courts may look at costs in a sympathetic way.

Disclaimer: The information in this article is intended as a general guide only. While every care is taken to ensure accuracy of information contained in this article, Aisling Meehan, Agricultural Solicitors does not accept responsibility for errors or omissions howsoever arising. E-mail ameehan@farmersjournal.ie

Read more

High Court injunction granted against beef protesters