Jersey Maincrop Potato Marketing Board v Rolland

• Jurisdiction: Jersey
• Court: Petty Debts Court (Jersey)
• Judge: Day, Judge:
• Judgment Date: 14 October 1986
• Date: 14 October 1986

PETTY DEBTS COURT

Day, Judge:

R. J. Michel for the plaintiff;

Mrs. M.E. Whittaker for the defendant.

Legislation construed:

Agricultural Marketing (Jersey) Law, 1953, art. 2(7): The relevant terms of this paragraph are set out at page 436, lines 31-35.

art. 11(2): The relevant terms of this paragraph are set out at page 437, lines 15-16.

Maincrop Potato Marketing Scheme (Approval) (Jersey) Act, 1968 (R. & O. 5159), para. 24(1), as amended: The relevant terms of this subparagraph are set out at page 435, lines 20-26.

para. 24(3), as amended: The relevant terms of this sub-paragraph are set out at page 435, lines 26-31).

para. 31(1), as amended: "Subject to the provisions of this Law with regard to existing contracts and to the provisions of this Part of this Scheme, a producer who is not a registered producer shall not sell any potatoes in the Channel Islands."

Agriculture—marketing schemes—potatoes—Maincrop Potato Marketing Scheme (Approval) (Jersey) Act, 1968, para. 31(1), does not limit Scheme to growers selling potatoes in harvested state but includes sale in restaurant owned by grower

Agriculture—marketing schemes—potatoes—Maincrop Potato Marketing Scheme (Approval) (Jersey) Act, 1968, para. 24(3), requiring penal contribution to Jersey Maincrop Potato Marketing Board in case of overplanting is ultra vires Agricultural Marketing (Jersey) Laws, 1953 to 1961, since no power to restrict production

The plaintiff Board sought to recover from the defendant a sum (with interest) alleged to be due under the terms of a statutory crop marketing scheme.

Under the potato marketing scheme administered by the plaintiff Board, any producer who wished to sell potatoes in the Channel Islands had to register with the Board, which authorised such producers to devote a certain acreage of land to the growing of potatoes. Producers were required to make a small contribution to the Board's funds for each vergée of land so allocated and a much larger contribution in respect of every additional, unallocated vergée on which potatoes were grown; the rates of contribution were fixed by resolution of the Board. When the defendant planted more than his allocated area and refused to contribute in respect of the excess, the Board brought the present proceedings.

The plaintiff Board submitted that, as a registered producer who had devoted a larger area of land to potatoes than that which he had been allocated, the defendant was required to contribute the sum claimed since (a) although he had not disposed of the potatoes grown on the additional land directly to the public or to wholesalers, he had nonetheless "sold" them by serving them in his restaurant and it was, therefore, not open to him to argue that he was not bound by the terms of the Scheme; and (b) the contribution provisions were no more than an exercise...