Woolley, who has been convicted on a number of offences against the Resource Management Act, claims he met the requirements ordered by the Environment Court and obtained a valid certificate.
Fonterra had suspended the milk collection because of the enforcement order Glenmae was under at the time.
By the end of August that year Woolley was dumping up to 20,000 litres of milk every day into an effluent pond on the farm, all while continuing to lobby for Fonterra to collect the milk of his growing herd.
The pond where the milk was being disposed of had amassed to an estimated 75 per cent solids because it had not been cleared, or “de-sludged”, since operations began.
Woolley said he had complied with the enforcement order in September 2014 and had obtained an engineer’s certificate. He alleged Fonterra was not entitled to maintain its milk collection suspension.
He also argued last year that the notice of suspension from Fonterra was invalid.
Today his lawyer Paul Morten said Woolley believed he had met all the requirements when he obtained a certificate from an engineer in September 2014, and that Fonterra should have checked if everything was above board.
In Justice Isac’s decision last year, he found Woolley’s claim had fallen short on four reasons, including that the engineer’s certificate didn’t meet the requirements set out by the Environment Court’s enforcement order.
This meant Woolley remained in breach of its terms.
Justice Isac said Fonterra’s decision was not unreasonable in the circumstances and its notice suspending milk collection was properly issued and effective.
“I have concluded that Mr Woolley’s own unlawful conduct – milking in breach of the enforcement orders – is a necessary pre-condition of his claimed loss,” Justice Isac said in the 151-page decision.
“Accordingly, any losses Mr Wooley claims to have suffered are a result of his own unlawful conduct and are not recoverable.”
Despite the fact Woolley remained in breach, as found by Justice Isac, the case itself raised interesting issues about the way the law does, and should, control “contractual discretions”, he said.
The appeal is off the back of an extensive prior hearing that saw 15 witnesses give evidence over nine days.
Around 800 documents were submitted to the courts during the 2021 hearing, and although the 2014 breach was the main focus, developments on Woolley’s farms from 2008 were a necessary backdrop.
The hearing was will continue tomorrow when Fonterra will make its case.
According to the previous decision Woolley had found it difficult to comply with his obligations under the Resource Management Act when operating Glenmae and two other farms.
The Marlborough District Council successfully obtained enforcement orders from the Environment Court for two out of three of the farms.
It succeeded in prosecuting Woolley for several offences against the RMA.
In 2015 this resulted in a court order that prohibited Woolley from involvement in the day-to-day management of a dairy farm for a decade.
