Conclusion on the perspectives of cooperation between the CSO, ministries, and research institutes, in terms of the monitoring of animal production and its environmental impacts. • Setting up an efficient national centre for the purpose of estimating production indicators, including release coefficients, seems to constitute the major challenge to be faced by the entities managing the agri-environmental animal production reporting. It also comprises the issues of continuation and improvement of the methodology included in the report. As was mentioned before, only continual monitoring and frequent reporting can ensure the reliability of the indicators applied. Such an ongoing character of work will also let us determine the trends of the occurring changes. • In the context of the establishment of the center, but also any other work related to the monitoring of animal production and its environmental impact, the emphasis should be put on close cooperation organizations such agencies as the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, CSO and research and development institutes. To the extent that only the latter, unlike the universities, are able to constantly examine issues of quality (digestibility, emissions, concentration, etc.) while the issues of quantification (used breeds, types and length of processes, productivity, systems used, etc.) remain domain of CSO, The Agency for Restructuring and Modernisation of Agriculture (ARMA) or National Veterinary Research Institute. As already mentioned, the research units need constant work orders, with the well-known, widely accepted methodology (Nutrient Mass Flow Budget). • Organizations collecting quantitative data require, however, not only unify, but expanding research methodologies, and from the point of view of the size of the actions, their task division. Much of the data collected by the statute of ARMA and National Veterinary Research Institute, because of its small imprecision can not be used by the CSO and The National Research Institute of Animal Production for estimating production indicators. • The leading role in the search for cooperation opportunities and changes and harmonization of methodologies, must be attributed to the recent CSO. This is not an easy operation, because it faces to ossified structures and permanent lack of synergy and horizontal co-operation of these units. Therefore, it is advisable to further continue the made efforts and the projects, the more that the ultimate goal will be very attractiv...
Conclusion on the first issue 92 In summary, while the requirement of factual foreseeability was satisfied, the requirement of legal proximity was not made out and there were cogent policy considerations which militated against the imposition of a duty of care in the present case. Accordingly, I found that the defendant did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care. Whether the defendant breached its duty of care to the plaintiff 93 While my conclusion on the first issue is sufficient to dispose of this case in its entirety, I shall also address the second issue, ie whether the defendant had breached its duty of care, given that the evidence at trial was heavily focused on this issue. The applicable standard of care 94 According to the plaintiff, the standard of care expected of the defendant extended to the following duties:
Conclusion on the second issue 138 I was of the view that the defendant’s findings and the means by which it had arrived at these findings were reasonable, fair and objective. Legitimate concerns were raised pertaining to the existence of two sets each of the 86 DBOD at pp 42–44, paras 10 and 23 Acquisition ETAs and the Disposal ETAs which required further investigation, explanation and clarification. These concerns were properly flagged out to SBI’s Board for consideration in the interests of good governance. 139 I found that the explanations for these concerns that the plaintiff had placed before the court were largely self-serving. Even if he had put forward the same explanations from the outset (ie before or at the EGM on 16 September 2016), it was difficult to see how SBI’s Board would have been persuaded to disregard the defendant’s recommendation to consider instructing legal counsel to review its factual findings and to provide advice to the Board. In all likelihood, the Board would still have deemed it necessary to seek legal advice and undertake further enquiry in any event. 140 I was satisfied that, even if the defendant had owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, its conduct had not fallen below the requisite standard of care. As such, the plaintiff’s case also failed on this basis. 141 For completeness, I turn finally to briefly address the third issue – ie, whether the plaintiff suffered loss and damage as a result of the defendant’s alleged negligence. Whether the plaintiff suffered loss and damage 142 The plaintiff claimed that he had suffered the following heads of damage arising from the defendant’s conduct:87 87 SOC at para 63
