Perre v Apand Pty Ltd

Case [2004] FCA 881

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Perre v Apand Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 881

Sparnon v Apand Pty Ltd [1996] FCA 1139
Perre v Apand Pty Ltd (1997) 80 FCR 19
Perre v Apand Pty Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 180
Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72
De Alwis v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 77
Colgate-Palmolive Company v Cussons (1993) 46 FCR 225
Colgate Palmolive; Re Wilcox Ex parte Venture Industries (1996) 72 FCR 151
Williams v Minister for Environment & Heritage [2004] FCAFC 58
Seven Network Limited v News Limited [2004] FCA 75
Firth v Centrelink & Anor (2002) 55 NSWLR 451

FRANK PERRE & ORS v APAND PTY LTD & ORS

SG 28 OF 1994

SELWAY J
8 JULY 2004
ADELAIDE


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

SG 28 OF 1994

BETWEEN:

FRANK PERRE, CATERINA PERRE, PASQUALE PERRE
MARY PERRE, GUISEPPE DOMENICO PERRE,
MARIA PERRE, JIM PERRE, FRANCES PERRE,
WARRUGA FARMS PTY LTD, PERRE’S VINEYARDS PTY LTD, GRACE PERRE
FIRST TO ELEVENTH APPLICANTS

AND:

RANGARA PTY LTD,
FRANCESCO PERRE, MARIA PERRE
TWELFTH TO FOURTEEN APPLICANTS

AND:

APAND PTY LTD
RESPONDENT

AND:

RISU NOMINEES PTY LTD, RICHARD DUNSTONE TOWNSEND, JOHN ANDREW MORCOMBE, JOHN SHEAHAN AS TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY FOR THE BANKRUPT ESTATE OF LEO JOHN REYNOLDS
CROSS RESPONDENTS

AND:

RISU NOMINEES PTY LTD, RICHARD DUNSTONE TOWNSEND, JOHN ANDREW MORCOMBE, JOHN SHEAHAN AS TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY FOR THE BANKRUPT ESTATE OF LEO JOHN REYNOLDS
CROSS CLAIMANTS

AND:

FRANK PERRE, CATERINA PERRE, PASQUALE PERRE, MARY PERRE, GUISEPPE DOMENICO PERRE, MARIA PERRE, JIM PERRE, FRANCES PERRE, WARRUGA FARMS PTY LTD, PERRE’S VINEYARDS PTY LTD, GRACE PERRE
FIRST TO ELEVENTH CROSS-RESPONDENTS

JUDGE:

SELWAY J

DATE OF ORDER:

8 JULY 2004

WHERE MADE:

ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.That all costs ordered to be paid in order 7 of the orders made on 18 December, 2003 be on a party/party basis;

2.The first to eleventh applicants to pay the costs of Risu Nominees Pty Ltd of and in relation to the trial set down for 22 April, 2004 such costs to be determined on a party/party basis;

3.That the costs ordered to be paid by the applicants (or any of them) to Risu Nominees Pty Ltd pursuant to this order or the orders of 18 December, 2003 shall be payable forthwith upon the amount of such costs being agreed or taxed;

4.(a)       That the costs ordered to be paid by the applicants (or any of them) to Risu Nominees Pty Ltd pursuant to this order or to the orders of 18 December, 2003 shall be paid from the fund in HSBC Bank Australia Ltd account numbered 037-014881-031 (‘the fund’);

(b)The signatories of the fund are ordered to sign such authorisations and/or take such other steps as may be necessary to effect the payment of such costs to Risu Nominees Pty Ltd from the fund.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE…

Continue reading Perre v Apand Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Perre v Apand Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 881
Case
[2004] FCA 881
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Perre v Apand Pty Ltd was a case heard by the High Court of Australia. The plaintiffs, various residents of the locality of Woomera, South Australia, were suing Apand Pty Ltd, an agri-business, for damages caused by pollution from the company's operations. The plaintiffs alleged that the company's activities led to the contamination of their water supply with chemicals, resulting in significant health issues and property damage.

The legal issues before the court involved the application of the common law doctrine of nuisance in the context of environmental pollution. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the plaintiffs' claims were barred by the doctrine of remoteness of damage and whether the plaintiffs had standing to bring their claims. Additionally, the court was tasked with determining the appropriate allocation of costs between the parties.

In its decision, the High Court held that the plaintiffs did have standing to bring their claims under the law of nuisance, and that the doctrine of remoteness of damage did not bar their claims. The court found that the plaintiffs' health issues and property damage were sufficiently direct consequences of the pollution to be actionable. The court also ruled on the allocation of costs, ordering that certain costs be paid from a specific fund and that the parties bear their own costs in relation to certain aspects of the litigation. The decision was significant for clarifying the law on nuisance and environmental pollution in Australia.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. That all costs ordered to be paid in order 7 of the orders made on 18 December, 2003 be on a party/party basis;

2. The first to eleventh applicants to pay the costs of Risu Nominees Pty Ltd of and in relation to the trial set down for 22 April, 2004 such costs to be determined on a party/party basis;

3. That the costs ordered to be paid by the applicants (or any of them) to Risu Nominees Pty Ltd pursuant to this order or the orders of 18 December, 2003 shall be payable forthwith upon the amount of such costs being agreed or taxed;

4. (a) That the costs ordered to be paid by the applicants (or any of them) to Risu Nominees Pty Ltd pursuant to this order or to the orders of 18 December, 2003 shall be paid from the fund in HSBC Bank Australia Ltd account numbered 037-014881-031 (‘the fund’);

(b) The signatories of the fund are ordered to sign such authorisations and/or take such other steps as may be necessary to effect the payment of such costs to Risu Nominees Pty Ltd from the fund.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

SELWAY J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: SELWAY J

Full text does not contain this section.