English meat suppliers challenge Food Standards Agency over inspection costs

The case, which was heard on June 21 and 22 in the Royal Courts of Justice before Mr Justice Mostyn, found that the absence of information on the calculation of various elements of the fees, together with a lack of information on how costs were apportioned between the hourly rates for Official Veterinarians and Meat Hygiene Inspectors 'had the consequence of preventing a reasonably astute reader of the material on the website from checking, broadly, the accuracy of the calculation of the hourly charging rates. The consequence constituted a breach of the duty of transparency'.

It is now up to the FSA to agree with AIMS and others how the lack of transparency is to be remedied and if agreement is not forthcoming the Judge will rule on any dispute.

But the judicial review did not look at the lawfulness of the fees levied – and that is now the next step that AIMS believes needs to be considered.

The association noted that in the run up to the case, evidence emerged that 'strongly suggested' FSA had in the past illegally included profits and pre-service training costs from their contract Eville & Jones (E&J) in its charges.

“How to recover those illegal charges will now be considered, as can recovery and prevention of future inclusion of other elements of the charges, which can now be identified as a result of the increased transparency” said Peter Hewson, Veterinary Director at AIMS.

“One such example is the cost of the very considerable checks the FSA carries out on the performance of E&J OVs and MHIs” he continued.

AIMS Head of Policy, Norman Bagley added: “AIMS is very grateful to its legal team at Roythornes Solicitors along with Hugh Mercer QC and Naomi Hart as well as all who supported the challenge, either by putting themselves forward to be named in the case or by providing financial support. We have and will always put the interests of our members first and stand up against unfairness from regulatory bodies”.