POULTRY growers in Co Monaghan lost their High Court claim yesterday that a processing company had abused its dominant position in the market.

Mr Justice Shanley in his judgment yesterday said he had to decide whether any of Monaghan Poultry Products Ltd's (MPP) practices complained of by the growers amounted to an abuse of a dominant position by it.

The growers alleged that the flesh price offered by MPP was unfair. The judge said there was no evidence which as a matter of probability established that MPP had offered unfair prices. No genuinely comparable flesh prices were adduced in evidence to allow the court to make an assessment of the fairness of MPP's prices.

He said the growers also claimed that MPP was guilty of abuse of dominance in obliging them to purchase their meal from it. The evidence before the court established that the practice of requiring growers to purchase their feed through their processor began in the 1960s.

In 1976, MPP required its growers to purchase their meal through it and currently all processors, save Cootehill Co operative Society, required their growers to purchase meal through them. The prevalence of the practice over a prolonged period led him to the conclusion that the obligation to purchase meal through the processor had been connected with the contract for the provision of a broiler growing service.

The grower agreed to provide a broiler growing service for a processor who agreed to pay a price for the grown chicken. The processor was perfectly entitled to specify how and with what particular feed the chicks should be reared.

While there was evidence that MPP offered different terms to different growers, there was no evidence to suggest that such conduct had the result of placing the affected growers at any competitive disadvantage.

Accordingly, he was satisfied that MPP had not abused its position of dominance.

The growers alleged that their agreement with MPP had as their object or effect the restriction of competition by the impositition of unfair purchase prices and by requiring growers to purchase their meal through MPP. He was satisfied that the evidence did not sustain these allegations.

Mr Justice Shanley ruled in favour of the growers on one point. They claimed MPP was in breach of its contract in failing to properly account in respect of dead and useless birds. MPP was not able to explain the basic inconsistency between the Department of Agriculture records of condemnations and MPP's records of dead and useless birds.

The judge said the growers were entitled to recover damages for breach of contract due to inaccurate assessment of "useless" birds.