The payments to be made to the farmers involved will be around £250,000.
UFU president, Graham Furey, said: "We have supported these farmers from the outset. They applied in good faith to the 2003 Suckler Cow Premium Scheme, but during the five per cent heifer retention period some of their heifers calved and DARD penalised their payments.
"We fought this case to obtain fair play for the farmers who were harshly penalised by DARD. We believed the penalties should never have been imposed and, when tested in court, the judge agreed that the rules of the scheme were not properly outlined to the farmers and that DARD were negligent in not providing sufficient information to applicants.''
Graham Furey welcomed the Minister's decision to not pursue the appeal which DARD had lodged after the initial court ruling.
"The Minister has now made the right decision and this is exactly the sort of outcome which farmers have hoped that a Devolved Government would deliver; a local Minister being seen to work for, rather than against, local farming families,'' he said.
"I also welcome the Minister's announcement that the 150 other similar cases should now be reviewed and compensation, including interest paid. We hope this can be done as efficiently as possible.''
Graham Furey added: "I hope this decision marks the beginning of a new chapter in relations between farmers and DARD, where there is a positive working relationship.''
Agriculture Minister Michelle Gildernew MP, ML, announced compensation payments to farmers of around £250,000 under the 2003 Suckler Cow Premium Scheme (SCPS).
The move follows a decision by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development not to appeal against a recent Civil Bill court judgment on the case involving the five per cent heifer requirement.
The Civil Bill hearing found that the Department's Notes for Guidance in the 2003 Suckler Cow Premium Scheme were not sufficiently clear on the minimum five per cent heifer condition and, in particular, the requirement to notify on replacements. Compensation will now be paid to farmers who did not notify replacement heifers in accordance with the five per cent heifer minimum requirements.
The Minister said: "This was a complex case but, having considered the matter carefully, including taking legal advice, I have decided that the appeal lodged following the court case on 29 August 2008, should not be continued with. I have also decided that 150 other cases to which this judgment reads across, should be reviewed and compensation, including interest, paid where appropriate."
The Minister added: "The Department will be writing shortly to each of the applicants concerned. The process will take a little time but I expect that all cases will have been reviewed and compensation paid within the next 12 weeks."
Jim Allister MEP also welcomed the announcement by DARD. "At last, it seems commonsense will prevail, and instead of the taxpayer having to fund another costly legal challenge, that money will be diverted into compensation payments to farmers,'' he said.
"We must be clear, this is not some goodwill payment on the part of the Department, but a long overdue recompense for income foregone on the part of farmers who suffered due to unclear advice from DARD. I trust payments will be made without any further delay."
DUP agriculture spokesman and South Antrim MP, Dr William McCrea, chairman of the Assembly's Agriculture Committee, said: ``This decision by the Department is a very clear victory for the Agriculture Committee and our ability to force the Minister into seeing sense. I welcome the fact that the Department has decided not to appeal the court ruling on the case regarding the five per cent heifer requirement and to pay compensation, but it was very clear that neither the Minister nor her Department had any intention of taking this course of action prior to the committee taking up the case of these farmers.
``It is welcome, however, that the Minister has finally accepted that the Department was in the wrong in this case. When DARD officials were called before the committee to give evidence on this case it was clear that there was a catalogue of errors which led to the court ruling against the Department.''
He added: ``This is a small step forward by the Minister in terms of re-building a very damaged relationship with the agricultural community. I would hope that this might be continued with other necessary steps by the Minster including ensuring that the court ruling on duplicate fields is applied across all affected farmers and that the Department might follow their own legal advice to make payments under the Farm Nutrient Management Scheme after the 31st December deadline.''