Originally from: Farmtalking
                        
From: ...

Originally from – http://icdumfries.icnetwork.co.uk/news/localnews/gallowaynews/gallowaynews/tm_objectid=14238021%26method=full%26siteid=77296%26headline=firm%2dwins%2d%2d%2dx00a3%2d250%2d000%2dclaim%2dover%2dfoot%2dand%2dmouth%2drow-name_page.html

FIRM WINS £250,000 CLAIM OVER FOOT AND MOUTH ROW May 13 2004

WALLETS Marts at Castle Douglas have won a three year legal fight against the Scottish Executive after taking them to court in a dispute over foot and mouth payments.

The Sheriff at Kirkcudbright who heard the complex case over a five month period in which Wallets claimed more than £¼ million from the Scottish Ministers, has ruled in their favour.

The money was claimed by the company for work they carried out during the 2001 foot and mouth epidemic which left more than 600,000 animals slaughtered in South West Scotland and the Borders.

Sheriff James Smith has ruled that Wallets should receive £267,332 plus interest accrued over the past three years.

Wallets took the Scottish Ministers to court after they refused to pay the bill run up through valuation of livestock which were due to be slaughtered during the world's worst epidemic.

Wallets carried out around 550 valuations on herds mainly in Dumfries and Galloway during the outbreak. They decided to go to Court after claiming that they were told that they would be paid on a per valuation basis of one per cent of the stock valuation with a minimum payment of £500 for each one and a maximum of £1,500.

The Scottish Executive who started paying out the full rate but reduced it to a maximum of £1500 per day and a minimum of £500, have been told by the Sheriff in his 40-page judgement to pay Wallets with the interest which has accrued over the past three years.

Wallets managing director Robin Anderson said he was obviously delighted with the decision but added: “While we are delighted about the result of the case, we are disappointed that the matter had to be taken to litigation. But from early on it was absolutely clear that there was no prospect of settling the matter without the involvement of the Courts.

"It was clearly recognised by the SEERAD officials that the per valuation rate was appropriate and fair. It is important to note that the disease was contained a lot quicker in Scotland than it was in England and Wales."

The judgement on this case has been eagerly awaited not only by Wallets but also by other firms of valuers throughout Scotland who were involved in carrying FMD valuations on behalf of the Scottish Executive.

The Executive said they had received and noted the decision and would be studying it before making a response.

In Scotland alone there were more than 170 confirmed cases of foot and mouth disease and hundreds more farms lost their stock under the culling programme that was brought in during the 2001 outbreak.

During the evidence at Kirkcudbright Robin Anderson, the managing director of Wallets and auctioneer and valuer with the firm, Alan Paterson gave evidence that they had carried out valuations during the Scottish outbreak in March 2001 as desperate efforts were made to contain the spread of the disease which was first discovered in Essex and traced back to pigs from a Northumberland farm.

The Sheriff said that it had already spread to sheep on farms adjoining the pig premises and some of those sheep had already passed through the market system, in particular at Longtown and Hexham Markets and had then been sold and transported to other farms and markets throughout the country.

Mr Anderson and Mr Paterson said they had been told by Charles McLean, a veterinary surgeon with the State Veterinary Service based in Dumfries and who was made a temporary Divisional manager, that the payment would be on the one per cent basis with a minimum of £500 per valuation and a £1500 maximum per valuation. Mr McLean in his evidence rejected this.

But Sheriff Smith says that when it came to Mr McLean's evidence he had been caught out in a lie and had rejected his evidence and added: "During Mr McLean's evidence I formed the view that he was prevaricating. I came close to giving him a warning. At the close of his evidence he was asked about certain personal problems and he admitted that during the time of the foot and mouth crisis he had a severe alcohol abuse problem which could have affected his memory of events. These considerations alone would give any Court concern about the reliability of that evidence.

Sheriff Smith said that the witnesses for the Scottish Executive had all been credible and reliable with the exception of Mr McLean and Robert Milloy, an animal health officer at Ayr. He said that he only accepted Mr Milloy's evidence in part and added: "I reject the evidence he gave that he had no knowledge that the valuers were to be paid at any rate at all.

"Like Mr McLean, this goes against the whole tide of evidence in this case. Not only was Mr Milloy the civil servant with sole responsibility for instructing valuers during the 'dirty cull' of infected premises but also the civil servant who devised and put into effect a scale of remuneration for slaughtermen. It is hard to conceive how he coujld have done this without knowing the context in which others were to be paid during the crisis.

"The evidence of Mr Paterson and Mr Anderson was that Mr Milloy constantly made reference to their rate of payment during their dealings with him. I prefer their evidence and reject that of Mr Milloy in this regard."

And the Sheriff added: "Why Mr McLean and Mr Milloy were disingenous I know not. But this case arises because of the belief that a 'mistake' was made by the civil service in Scotland in regard to valuers fees. This is echoed in the correspondence and both Mr McLean and Mr Milloy are still civil servants.

"Possibly they were reluctant to give evidence which might expose them to being party to the alleged mistake. However, as the chief agricultural officer for Scotland at the time and one of the most senior veterinary surgeons in the State Veterinary Services testified, that the rate of payment by the defenders to valuers in Scotland was at the per valuation rate, they had little to fear."

Mr Anderson also said yesterday: "The company did not embark on this litigation lightly given that our opponents in the form of the Scottish Executive had a huge array of resources and monies at their disposal which we didn't. We have statutory responsibilities to our shareholders and we don't spent their money lightly.

"Having assessed the situation away back in 2001 when payments for foot and mouth valuation work dried up and having taken all the appropriate legal advice, we concluded that they were in breach of contract and on that basis we raised the court action in Kirkcudbright Sheriff Court. Our position in raising this action has been vindicated by the judgement in our favour and we trust that there will be no more prevarication and delay on the part of the Scottish Executive and that in accordance with the judgement, they pay the money which is due and owing to us."