Farmer ‘created animal welfare crisis’ to pressure Fonterra to pick up milk

A Marlborough dairy farmer who took Fonterra to the High Court for refusing to take his milk – and lost – has now had his appeal dismissed too.

Philip Woolley launched the legal action against Fonterra after the company stopped taking his milk in 2014, because the Environment Court had ordered Woolley to stop using his milking shed and get his effluent ponds certified as compliant, at his Glenmae farm in Tuamarina, north of Blenheim. The Court of Appeal decision, released in June, relied on the 2021 High Court summary to outline the near-decade long legal wrangle between Woolley, Fonterra and to a lesser extent the Marlborough District Council.

Woolley had a six-year contract to supply Fonterra with milk starting from June 2013. But after the council sought an Environment Court order, Fonterra sent Woolley a letter, on June 18, 2014, to say the company would not be taking his milk.

A Fonterra staffer met with him about his situation in July were about 600 cows to be milked on August 12. With milk collection suspended, the milk had to be dumped into the effluent pond. The milking coincided with increasing pressure from Woolley’s bank to ensure that they were generating sufficient income to finance their “significant liabilities”. the Environment Court lifting the suspension before it resumed milk collection. ley remained in breach of the Environment Court order, his resource consent, and his agreement with Fonterra. Woolley’s appeal, heard in November last year, argued the High Court had no jurisdiction to consider if the certificate satisfied the Environment Court order, and the order’s meaning was misconstrued anyway, he said – when the certificate was obtained, the suspension should have ended. But the Court of Appeal rejected this, in its June decision. The Environment Court said when making the order “all aspects of the system from cowshed to paddock” were to be examined, and the certificate did not cover this, the court said. Fonterra needed to act in the interests of its many farmer shareholders, and maintaining the suspension was “not only rational but unsurprising”, the Court of Appeal said.

2014, and suggested Woolley try “book-building”, allowing other farmers to milk his cows.

Woolley “sat back, crossed his arms” and said he would either “milk them and put the milk into the non-compliant effluent pond”, or “simply not milk them” and their udders would “blow up”, the staffer told the High Court.

He also threatened to tell the media Fonterra “had caused an animal welfare issue” by refusing to pick up the milk.

By the end of August, the number of cows had peaked at 1200, and up to 20,000 litres of milk was being dumped each day into the effluent pond.

He

“created an animal welfare crisis”, the High Court summary in the Court of Appeal decision said. Woolley “candidly accepted” during a High Court hearing there

By September 5, 2014, Woolley had an engineer’s certificate, but the Marlborough District Council questioned its sufficiency. Fonterra wanted an order from

Woolley challenged this in the High Court in 2021, saying the suspension process was unreasonable, and the suspension should have ended once he got the required certificate. However, Fonterra’s Suppliers’ Handbook allowed Fonterra to terminate collection if a supplier did not comply with environmental sustainability requirements, or its terms of supply.

The High Court ruled Fonterra was not unreasonable to exercise contractual discretion. Despite obtaining the certificate, Wool-

Public Interest Journalism funded through NZ on Air.