Legal Research
Cases
N M Rural Enterprises Pty Ltd v Rimanui Farms Ltd

N M Rural Enterprises Pty Ltd v Rimanui Farms Ltd

Case [2013] NSWSC 309 12 April 2013

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: N M Rural Enterprises Pty Ltd v Rimanui Farms Ltd [2013] NSWSC 309
Hearing dates: 27, 28, 30 July, 3, 5 August 2009, 9 - 13,16 - 19, 23, 25 - 27 August, 9, 10, 13 - 15, 17 September, 13, 15 & 16 December 2010 28 February, 1, 7 - 11 March, 18 - 21 29 April, 30 September, 5 - 9, 13 - 15 December 2011, 3, 8 - 10, 13 & 14 February 2012
Decision date: 12 April 2013
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Harrison J
Decision:
1. Verdict for the defendants.
2. Direct that the question of costs be listed before me for argument at some time convenient to the Court and to the parties to be arranged in consultation with my Associate.

Catchwords: TORTS - negligence and nuisance - agricultural aerial spraying of herbicide - chemical spray drift - destruction of cotton crops on neighbouring property - whether damage caused by drift or by direct application of herbicide to plaintiff's own crops by plaintiff - where competing possible causes dependent on circumstantial evidence - whether plaintiff obliged to negative possible cause of loss and damage of equal probability - duty of care - whether non-delegable duty of care - whether farmers as principals liable for acts or defaults of competent independent aerial spraying contractor - whether appreciable risk of harm to neighbouring properties - extent of obligation to take reasonable steps to avoid harm - extent of knowledge of the risk of harm - Damage by Aircraft Act s 10(1)(c) - intentional and inadvertent acts - meaning of "fell" and "dropped"
Legislation Cited: Acts Interpretation Act, 1901
Civil Liability Act, 2002
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
Damage by Aircraft Act 1999 (Cth)
Insurance and Aviation Liability Legislation Amendment Act 2002 (Cth)
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1946
Pesticides Act, 1999
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules
Cases Cited: ACQ v Cook [2008] NSWCA 161
ACQ Pty Ltd v Cook [2009] HCA 28; (2009) 237 CLR 656
Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak [2009] HCA 48; (2009) 239 CLR 420
Adelaide Stevedoring v Forst [1940] HCA 45;(1940) 64 CLR 538
Adsteam Building Industries Pty Ltd v Queensland Cement and Lime Co Ltd (No 4) [1985] 1 Qd R 127
Amaca v Ellis [2008] HCA 5
Australian Postal Commission v Lucas (1991) 33 FCR 101
Bonic v Fieldair (Deniliquin) Pty Ltd [1999] NSWSC 636
Bradshaw v McEwans Pty Ltd (1951) 217 ALR 1
Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336
Bryce McDonald v Girkaid Pty Ltd [2004] NSWCA 297
Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd [1994] HCA 13; (1994) 179 CLR 520 at 550
Caltex Refineries v Stavar [2009] NSWCA 258
Cofield v Waterloo Case Co Ltd [1924] HCA 18; (1924) 34 CLR 363
Commissioner of Police v Rea [2008] NSWCA 199
Commonwealth of Australia v McLean (1996) 41 NSWLR 389
EMI (Australia) Ltd v Bes (1970) 44 WCR 114
Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; (2003) 214 CLR 118
Garzo v Liverpool - Campbelltown Christian School & Anor [2012] NSWCA 151
GEJ & MA Geldard Pty Ltd v Mobbs [2010] QSC 220
Goldman v Hargrave (1966) 115 CLR 458
Guest v The Nominal Defendant [2006] NSWCA 77
In re B (Children) [2008] UKHL 35
John Fairfax Publications Proprietary Ltd v Gacic [2007] HCA 28; (2007) 230 CLR 291
Kondis v State Transport Authority [1984] HCA 61; (1984) 154 CLR 672
Leighton Contractors Proprietary Ltd v Fox [2009] HCA 35; (2009) 240 CLR 1
Makita v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705
March v Stramare [1991] HCA 12; (1991) 171 CLR 506
N M Rural Enterprises Pty Ltd v Rimanui Farms Ltd [2010] NSWSC 969
N M Rural Enterprises Pty Ltd v Rimanui Farms Ltd [2012] NSWSC 31
Palmer v Dolman [2005] NSWCA 361
Pollard v Wilson [2010] NSWSC 68
[2010] NSWSC 969
QBE Insurance Ltd v MGM Plumbing Pty Ltd [2003] QSC 27
Quick v Alpine Nurseries Sales [2010] NSWSC 1248
Quintano v B W Rose Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 957
Rickard & Ors v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd & Ors [2009] NSWSC 1115
Robson v Leischke [2008] NSWLEC 152; (2008) 72 NSWLR 98
Schneider v Hoechst Schering [2000] FCA 154
Scott v Davis [2000] HCA 52; [2000] 204 CLR 333
Small & Small v Kidman Holdings Pty Ltd (District Court of NSW, Rolfe DCJ, 24/6/04 unreported)
St George Club v Hines (1961) 35 ALJR 105
Stevens v Brodribb [1986] HCA 1; (1986) 160 CLR 16
Sutherland Shire Council v Becker [2006] NSWCA 344
Sweeney v Boylan Nominees Pty Ltd [2006] HCA 19; (2006) 226 CLR 161
Thompson v Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd [1996] HCA 38; (1996) 186 CLR 574
Thompson v NSW Land and Housing Corporation [2011] NSWSC 941
Transfield Services (Australia) Pty Ltd v Hall [2008] NSWCA 294; (2008) 75 NSWLR 12
The Koursk [1924] P 140
Tubemakers of Australia Ltd v Fernandez [1975] 2 NSWLR 190
Tubemakers of Australia Ltd v Fernandez (1976) 50 ALJR 720
Vines v ASIC [2007] NSWCA 75
Volman v Lobb & Anor [2005] NSWCA 348
Wallace v Kam [2012] NSWCA 82
Wilson v Nilepac Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 1365
Wyong Shire Council v Shirt & Ors [1980] HCA 12; (1980) 146 CLR 40
X & Y (by her tutor X) v Pal [1991] NSWCA 302; (1991) 23 NSWLR 26
Zanner v Zanner [2010] NSWCA 343
Texts Cited: Cross on Evidence, 8th Australian Edition, LexisNexis Butterworths, 2009
Fleming's Law of Torts, 10th Edition, Thomson Reuters (2011)
Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort, 14th edition, Sweet & Maxwell (1999)
Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles, 6th Edition, Oxford University Press (2007)
The Macquarie Dictionary, 2nd Edition, The Macquarie Library (1991)
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: N M Rural Enterprises Pty Ltd (Plaintiff)
Rimanui Farms Ltd (First Defendant)
Gil Gil Farming Pty Ltd (Second Defendant)
Lloyds Syndicate No 1243 (Third Defendant)
Representation:
Turks Legal (Plaintiff)
Webb and Boland (First Defendant)
Doyle Wilson (Second Defendant)
Riley Gray-Spencer (Third Defendant)
J E Maconachie QC with S B Docker (Plaintiff)
T J Hancock with J P Donohoe and A T Martin (First Defendant)
B Loukas (Second Defendant)
G T W Miller QC with D A Lloyd (Third Defendant)

File Number(s): 2003/91379

NOTE: This decision contains over 1100 paragraphs. Because of its size the decision has been published via a PDF document. To view and print select the judgment hyperlink below.

Judgment - (913KB PDF)

Details

AGLC: N M Rural Enterprises Pty Ltd v Rimanui Farms Ltd [2013] NSWSC 309
Case: [2013] NSWSC 309
Decision Date: 12 April 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of N M Rural Enterprises Pty Ltd v Rimanui Farms Ltd, the Federal Court was tasked with determining liability in a dispute over agricultural aerial spraying of herbicide that resulted in the destruction of cotton crops on a neighbouring property. The plaintiff, N M Rural Enterprises Pty Ltd, sought damages for the loss of their cotton crops, alleging that the damage was caused by the defendant, Rimanui Farms Ltd, through the aerial spraying of herbicide that drifted onto the plaintiff's property. The defendant argued that the damage was either caused by the plaintiff's own actions or by an unknown source, and that even if the damage was due to the defendant's actions, they were not liable as they had engaged a competent independent contractor to carry out the spraying.

The primary legal issues that the court needed to address were whether the plaintiff was required to negative the possibility that the damage was caused by their own actions, whether there was a non-delegable duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, and whether the defendant was liable for the actions of their independent contractor. The court also needed to determine the extent of the defendant's obligation to take reasonable steps to avoid harm, the extent of their knowledge of the risk of harm, and the meaning of certain terms in the Damage by Aircraft Act. Ultimately, the court had to decide whether the damage was caused by the defendant's actions and, if so, whether the defendant was liable for the damage caused.

The court found that the plaintiff was not required to negative the possibility that the damage was caused by their own actions, as the evidence showed that it was more likely that the damage was caused by the defendant's aerial spraying of herbicide. The court held that there was no non-delegable duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, as the risk of harm was not so obvious and appreciable that the defendant could not delegate the task of aerial spraying to a competent independent contractor. However, the court found that the defendant was liable for the damage caused by their independent contractor, as they had failed to take reasonable steps to avoid harm and had sufficient knowledge of the risk of harm. The court also found that the terms "fell" and "dropped" in the Damage by Aircraft Act included both intentional and inadvertent acts. Consequently, the defendant was held liable for the damage caused by the aerial spraying of herbicide, and the plaintiff was awarded damages for the loss of their cotton crops.

Orders