The matters referred to in the question relate mainly to litigation undertaken by the person named in the 1980s and specifically to two judgments of the High Court and Supreme Court, delivered in 1985 and 1988 respectively. My Department was not a defendant in this litigation.
Despite the resolution of this litigation in 1988, in favour of the person named, he has continued to pursue certain matters with my Department and indeed other Departments, which he claims are associated with this long concluded litigation. Arising out of the contacts with my Department, substantial allocations of permanent and temporary milk quota were made to the person named. These additional allocations were part of a full and final settlement offer made to the person named and accepted by him. The recent representations made by the person named in 2004 are in reality an attempt to re-open the litigation, concluded in 1988. It was open to the person named to issue proceedings against my Department concerning these issues within six years after the conclusion of the litigation in 1988, which he failed to do.
Proceedings, which may be statute barred, were issued by the person named in 2003 against my Department and a third party on issues connected with allocations of milk quota and other related matters. My Department is fully defending these proceedings.