The lengthy legal drama at the High Court over farmers' defiance of court orders restraining the blockade of meat plants across the State took a new turn yesterday. The orders were lifted at the request of the factory owners who said they hoped "sanity will break out" and agreement would be reached with farmers over beef prices.
Having initially sought to adjourn the matter for four days, the meat plants later yesterday applied for the injunction to be lifted. That application occurred after Mr Justice O'Donovan said the order continued to be flouted and gave the plants time to consider the situation.
When lifting the injunction, the judge told counsel for the meat plants they could apply for a new order at a later date. He also lifted the order appointing a sequestrator over the assets of the Irish Farmers' Association and awarded costs against the IFA.
The judge wished both parties well in the negotiations and he hoped the matter would be resolved as soon as possible. It had been no pleasure for him to deal with it for the last 10 days.
Mr Michael Collins SC, for the meat factories, applied to lift the court order restraining picketing. There had been repeated breaches of the order by a variety of individuals and the IFA, which had undertaken that it would not encourage the blockade. Despite the breaches, negotiations had been going on. His clients wanted to reach agreement. The plants had sought to be conciliatory. In the hope that agreement would be reached and sanity would break out, he was asking for the order to be vacated so the court could be removed from its continuing invidious position.
Mr Justice O'Donovan asked Mr John Rogers SC, for the IFA, if he had anything to say. Mr Rogers said: "I'm speechless." The judge replied: "I think you should be, for different reasons than you think."
Mr Rogers said Mr Collins had claimed the IFA was in breach of the court orders and had then said he was going to do nothing about it. That was a reflection of the substance of the remarks made by Mr Collins.
Before the judge adjourned proceedings so the factories could decide what to do, Ms Eileen Barrington, for the meat plants, applied to have an adjournment until Monday. Negotiations were under way and her clients did not wish to take any steps that might prejudice the situation. The judge said that while he could sympathise with that view, his previous order was still being flouted. Ms Barrington said she had no application to make to the court at that time. The meat plants intended gathering evidence in preparation for a hearing on Monday. The judge asked why this evidence was not available yesterday and said he had watched news bulletins and seen people on pickets being interviewed saying they intended to stay there.
Ms Barrington said her clients had been concentrating on the ongoing efforts to resolve the situation. Mr Justice O'Donovan asked what the point was in continuing the injunction. He was not going to sit back and tolerate his order being disobeyed.
Ms Barrington said her clients were encouraged in respect of what had happened following the undertakings that had been given on behalf of the IFA.
The judge told Mr Rogers that there was no evidence of the IFA trying to have the blockades ceased. While Mr Tom Parlon had resigned as president, it was clear he expected to be reinstated when the situation was resolved. He had been asked on Wednesday if he had any message for the pickets and he said he had nothing to say.
The judge said he would have thought Mr Parlon would have been telling the pickets they were breaking the law. Mr Rogers said Mr Parlon had done nothing to encourage picketing. His clients had done all they could to bring a pragmatic outcome to the situation. The factories now had no intention of seeking compliance with the order because it did not suit them, Mr Rogers said.
Mr Justice O'Donovan said he had hoped the situation might have been resolved overnight. He did not want to upset the applecart but the blockage was illegal. Farmers might have a legitimate complaint but they were not entitled to attain their ends in the present manner. His only concern was that the law was obeyed.
Mr Rogers said the factories had shown great urgency last week in invoking the court's jurisdiction. Now the same circumstances prevailed and negotiations were continuing as they did last weekend but the plaintiffs were asking the judge to "take your foot off the throttle".
The judge asked if there was any reason why he should continue the injunction if the plaintiffs were not going to enforce it. Ms Barrington said it sounded as if Mr Rogers was anxious that steps should be taken to enforce the court's order.
At the same time, he was indicating he was not of the view that his clients were required to take any steps whatsoever and for the factories to take measures to put an end to the blockades. Her clients were hoping that they would not have to pursue individuals at the blockades.
Mr Justice O'Donovan said he was equally concerned about the attitude of the meat processors - they seemed to "want their cake and eat it".