Seven farmers who suffered losses during the 2007 foot and mouth outbreak face an anxious wait while a decision is made on whether they can continue a legal challenge for compensation.
The seven farmers, from as far afield as Cumbria, Powys and Yorkshire, had their cases heard in the High Court this week after the NFU backed their cases.
Although their livestock was not culled in the outbreak the farmers claimed that the defendants, the two institutes at the Pirbright research centre in Surrey and DEFRA, were liable for losses incurred through movement restrictions and export bans.
The three-day hearing ended with the judge Mr Justice Tugendhat reserving judgment on whether the case should be heard in a trial court.
An NFU official explained: "The judge will now make a decision on whether their case can go on to a full trial at a later date."
"The fact the judge has reserved judgment and not thrown out the case is an important first hurdle cleared," the official added.
"The next step is the judge's decision which may take days or weeks. If he rules in favour of the farmers it will then move on to a full trial and the possibility of appeals before any compensation will be awarded.
"It is potentially a very long road ahead," the union official added.
The farmers alleged that DEFRA and the Pirbright facilities were negligent in allowing the disease to escape.
The challenge centred on the site's 80-year-old drains, where the virus leak began. The virus was then transported to a nearby farm on the wheels of vehicles which had been at the site carrying out maintenance work.
The farmers' counsel Richard Lissack QC told Mr Justice Tugendhat that all three defendants had been aware of the "inadequate" state of the drains for a number of years before the virus leak.
He added that the disease outbreak was foreseeable and that there had been a "dangerous state of affairs" at Pirbright but nothing had been done to rectify it.
Mr Lissack said that even though the second group of farmers had not had their livestock culled, they were still "first line victims", who should be paid damages.
The challenge has been countered by the defendants' lawyers on the grounds that there is no provision in the law for them to be compensated.
Earlier in the week a further seven farmers won an out-of-court settlement from the Pirbright research facilities. Unlike the first group these farmers had stock culled to control the spread of the disease.