The High Court has been asked to assess the level of compensation to be paid to a number of "development" farmers following a ministerial mistake arising from the introduction of milk quota curbs in the mid-1980s.
The small farmers, with the State's encouragement, had borrowed money to develop their farms on the basis that there would be an expanded outlet for the sale of their milk.
But, following the introduction of the 1984 "milk super-levy", they found they would not get the outlet for their milk they had expected and were induced to believe they would receive.
At an earlier hearing, the Supreme Court found that, through dividing the entire national quota between dairies and co-ops, the Minister had unwittingly placed himself in a position in which he could not provide for development farmers.
When the Minister discovered his mistake, the national quota had been divided without any provision for a national reserve out of which the development farmers would get their quota.
The farmers took legal proceedings, but in 1997 the High Court rejected their claims. It decided there was no evidence that the Minister for Agriculture had exercised his discretion under EU legislation in an abusive or unreasonable way.
The High Court held the farmers were not entitled to any legal relief and must look for their remedy, if any, in the political domain.
The farmers appealed to the Supreme Court, which decided the matter should go back to the High Court for the assessment of damages suffered by any of the farmers as a result of a ministerial mistake.
The case had been taken by nine named farmers, but it is believed there are about 1,200 small farmers who took part in the development scheme.
In the present High Court hearing, before the assessment of damages issue is decided by Ms Justice Laffoy, she is considering a preliminary question. She has to decide "as a matter of probability" what formula would have been used to allocate additional milk quotas in 1984-85 to farmers "who had invested heavily in milk production" if the Minister had not "committed an error of law".
When the Supreme Court gave its decision, Mr Justice Barrington said the State, on its own behalf and as an EU agent, had induced the farmers to borrow to develop on the basis that there would be an expanded outlet for selling their milk. Having incurred the heavy spending, they found they would not get the outlet.
In 1984 the EU introduced the milk super-levy. The development farmers' allocation was based solely on their 1983 deliveries.
Mr Justice Barrington said the then Minister, in relation to the division of the State's national milk quota, decided in 1984 to divide the quota between dairies and co-operative creameries. He also decided to provide for development farmers, young farmers and farmers with special difficulties from disease outbreaks.
This provision was to come out of what became referred to as "flexi-milk", milk which might become available because a producer had gone out of production or had failed to fulfil a quota.
The Minister attempted to provide for development farmers and others by claiming that portion of the milk quota "may be allocated to certain categories of producers with special difficulties."
To give the Minister his due, he had not intended to break faith with the development farmers, the judge said. But the Minister, in breach of his duty and of the development farmers' rights, had attempted to implement his decision in a manner that was unlawful. The farmers had suffered loss and damage and compensation was proper.
The hearing is expected to last for three weeks.