M bovis compensation claim
A huge-scale robotic dairying operation in South Canterbury is trying to clarify what it can be compensated for in the wake of attempts to eradicate the disease Mycoplasma bovis.
Van Leeuwen Group Ltd had brought a case at the High Court in Wellington in the interests of a much wider range of people, Van Leeuwen’s lawyer, Matthew Smith, said in court yesterday.
Van Leeuwen wants the court to clarify whether the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) can refuse to compensate for some types of expenses arising from biosecurity measures imposed to battle M bovis.
MPI lawyer Wendy Aldred said the Van Leeuwen Group had already received $6.3 million compensation for loss of milk production, profits and stock.
The Van Leeuwen Group, based in South Canterbury, has several farms. Aad and Wilma van Leeuwen own what has been described as the world’s largest robotic dairy barn. M bovis was first identified in New Zealand in one of their herds in mid-2017.
It has since been discovered on more than 200 dairy and beef properties, with the largest number in Canterbury. As at last week, MPI said 21 properties were still to be ‘‘depopulated’’, cleaned, and have restrictions lifted. More than 400 more properties were being tested or were considered at risk.
MPI says it has paid out $115m in compensation.
In court yesterday, Aldred said disputes about compensation should be submitted to arbitration and appeals against an arbitrator’s decision could go to court. MPI’s position was that farmers could not recover professional fees, for lawyers and accountants for example, incurred to formulate claims.
But expenses such as interest and other banking costs, and taking expert advice on how to mitigate loss after M bovis was found, could be claimed and would be negotiated and if necessary arbitrated with MPI.
Officials could not give blanket assurances and some claims were complex but MPI said: ‘‘Just file it and we will deal with it’’, Aldred said.
Van Leeuwen lawyer Smith said the company wanted the court to decide whether classes of expense could be claimed.
Being told to ‘‘Put in a claim and see what happens’’, was not particularly helpful in providing certainty and clarification.
Van Leeuwen and others supporting its claim want the general interpretation question settled rather than ‘‘rolling the dice’’ through a general arbitration process, Smith said.
Aldred said that even if some types of expense did not strictly meet the criteria, MPI could still pay in unusual circumstances.
The decision was reserved.