Association of Independent Meat Suppliers & Anor, R (on the application of) v Food Standards Agency [2021] UKSC 54

A slaughterhouse challenged the Food Standards Agency's refusal to use section 9 Food Safety Act 1990 procedure after an Official Veterinarian declared a carcass unfit for human consumption. The Supreme Court, following CJEU guidance, held section 9 incompatible with EU food safety regulations, and judicial review provides sufficient remedy.

Facts

Cleveland Meat Company Ltd (CMC) purchased a live bull which was slaughtered at their premises. Following post mortem inspection, the Official Veterinarian (OV) declared the carcass unfit for human consumption due to suspected pyaemia. The carcass was consequently denied a health mark, making it a criminal offence for CMC to sell it. CMC challenged the OV’s decision and argued that the Food Standards Agency (FSA) was required to use the procedure under section 9 of the Food Safety Act 1990, which would allow a Justice of the Peace to determine whether the carcass should be condemned. The FSA refused, instead serving a disposal notice under animal by-products regulations.

Issues

First Issue

Whether the section 9 procedure under the Food Safety Act 1990 is compatible with the EU food safety regime under Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 882/2004.

Second Issue

Whether the appeal procedure required by article 54(3) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 requires a full factual merits review, or whether judicial review on conventional public law grounds suffices.

Judgment

The Supreme Court, following the CJEU’s ruling, held that the section 9 procedure is incompatible with EU law. The CJEU explained that EU law entrusts the OV with responsibility for ensuring meat fitness for human consumption, and section 9 would improperly replace the OV’s judgment with that of a court ruling on the merits.

The CJEU held (para 70) that Regulations (EC) Nos 854/2004 and 882/2004 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation of the kind in section 9.

On the second issue, the CJEU found that judicial review on conventional public law grounds is sufficient. The Court noted:

In deciding whether or not a health mark should be affixed to a carcass the OV ‘must carry out a complex technical assessment requiring appropriate professional qualifications and expertise in the field’.

The CJEU further observed:

‘The importance of the objective of consumer protection may justify even substantial negative economic consequences for certain economic operators’, including food business operators such as CMC.

Implications

This judgment clarifies that in matters of food safety inspections under EU-derived regulations, the expertise of Official Veterinarians cannot be substituted by lay judicial determination. Judicial review remains the appropriate avenue for challenging OV decisions, limited to conventional public law grounds such as irrationality, procedural impropriety, or insufficient evidential basis. The case reinforces the primacy of specialised expert decision-making in technical regulatory contexts while maintaining access to justice through administrative law remedies.

Verdict: Appeal dismissed. The FSA did not act unlawfully in declining to use the section 9 procedure, and the United Kingdom has not failed to provide an appropriate means to challenge OV decisions, as judicial review is sufficient.

Source: Association of Independent Meat Suppliers & Anor, R (on the application of) v Food Standards Agency [2021] UKSC 54