Bootle v Barclay

In the Court of Appeal of New South Wales, the dispute concerned damage to crops caused by the aerial spraying of herbicide on adjoining land. The appellants, the Bootles, alleged negligence against the respondents, the Barclays, who were the lessee and occupier of the land from which the spraying occurred, as well as the pilot and the provider of the aircraft. The spray had drifted a significant distance, estimated at least 1700 metres, under weather conditions described as "ideal" for spraying.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the findings of negligence against the Barclays, the pilot, and the aircraft provider should be upheld, and the relevance of the hazardous nature of the spraying operation to these findings. The court was required to consider the evidence presented regarding the spraying operation, the drift of the herbicide, and the resulting damage to the Bootles' crops.

The Court of Appeal, comprising Meagher JA, Sackville AJA, and Ball J, allowed the appeal in part. The court found that the primary judge's verdict for the Barclays against the Bootles should be set aside. Consequently, the orders regarding costs were varied, with the Barclays ordered to pay the Bootles' costs of the proceedings in the District Court and the costs of the appeal. In relation to the application by MVAS and Mr Shapley, leave to appeal was granted, and the appeal was allowed in part. The verdict for the Barclays against Mr Shapley was set aside, and the Barclays were ordered to pay Mr Shapley's costs of the District Court proceedings and 50 per cent of the costs of the appeal. However, the verdict for the Barclays against MVAS was undisturbed, and MVAS was ordered to pay the Barclays' costs in that regard.