On to a winner with a $7.8 million arbitration award on top of its earlier nine million dollar compensation following Primary Industries, mycoplasma cull, van Leeuwen farms is fighting for the same arbitrator to decide its follow-up $75 million claim. No dice, ruled the High Court. The Biosecurity Act does not require the same arbitrator hear subsequent claims.
The van Leeuwen Group owned 13 dairy farms and six dry stock units across South Canterbury when M.bovis was identified on one of its farms in 2017. A government-ordered cull affected some 1500 farmers.
Van Leeuwen Group received some nine million dollars compensation in first round payouts for stock culled and lost milk production. A dispute over compensation for ongoing finance costs, together with claims for professional fees, went to arbitration.
Arbitrator Alan Galbraith KC required Primary Industries pay van Leeuwen a further $7.8 million of an extra $10.5 million claimed. This ruling signalled there are ‘residual issues’ still left undecided.
The High Court was told the two sides are at odds over both what might be residual issues and what evidence is required from van Leeuwen to support its further claims.
Looking to pre-empt how any further arbitration might proceed, van Leeuwen sought a High Court ruling that Mr Galbraith must be the arbitrator.
There is no legal requirement to use Mr Galbraith, Justice McHerron ruled.
Primary Industries told the court it is not committed, at this point, as to who might be appointed arbitrator, if a further arbitration is required. First, it is awaiting more evidence from van Leeuwen Group to define what is in dispute, Primary Industries says.
With van Leeuwen seeking over $75 million dollars for what it describes as loss in value of its farm properties and working capital losses directly attributable to the cull, Primary Industries wants to see the accounting evidence.
Specifically, it wants detailed information around van Leeuwen’s decision to sell, then lease back, its farms, plus access to van Leeuwen’s correspondence with its financiers. Without this information, it cannot assess whether further compensation should even be considered, Primary Industries, says.
van Leeuwen v. Attorney General – High Court (31.3.25)
25.096