Perre v Apand Pty Ltd

Case [1997] FCA 1275

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEGLIGENCE - action by potato growers supplied with seed potatoes infected by bacterial wilt - duty of care - whether breach of duty by supplier.

NEGLIGENCE - duty of care - proximity - claims for purely economic loss - export market for potatoes grown and processed by growers whose property closed by outbreak of bacterial wilt on the property of a neighbour who had been supplied with infected seed potatoes - whether duty of care owed to first mentioned growers by supplier.

CONTRACT - whether contract of sale and purchase of seed potatoes - whether implied conditions as to reasonable fitness and merchantable quality - whether implied conditions broken by supplying seed potatoes infected with bacterial wilt.

Trade Practices Act 1976 (Cth)
Plant Diseases Regulations 1989 (WA)
Plant Diseases Act1914 (WA)
Sale of GoodsAct 1895 (SA)

Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837 followed
Hill v Van Erp (1996) 142 ALR 687 followed
Esanda Finance Corporation Ltd v Peat Marwick Hungerford (Reg.) (1996)
142 ALR 750 followed
Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd v The Dredge “Willemstad” (1976) 136 CLR 529 followed
Bryan v Maloney (1995) 182 CLR 609 followed
Seas Sapfor v Electricity Trust of South Australia (unreported Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia, 9 August 1996) applied

FRANK PERRE & OTHERS v APAND PTY LTD (ACN 003 566 870)
SG 6 of 1997

APAND PTY LTD (ACN 003 566 870) v DAVID CHARLES SPARNON & OTHERS
SG 7 OF 1997

O’LOUGHLIN, BRANSON AND MANSFIELD JJ
ADELAIDE
21 NOVEMBER 1997

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE
OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SG 6 OF 1997

BETWEEN:  FRANK PERRE  FIRST APPELLANT
  CATERINA PERRE  SECOND APPELLANT
  PASQUALE PERRE  THIRD APPELLANT
  MARY PERRE  FOURTH APPELLANT
  GUISEPPE DOMENICO PERRE            FIFTH APPELLANT
  MARIA PERRE  SIXTH APPELLANT
  JIM PERRE  SEVENTH APPELLANT
  FRANCES PERRE  EIGHTH APPELLANT
  WARRUGA FARMS PTY LTD               NINTH APPELLANT
  PERRE’S VINEYARDS PTY LTD         TENTH APPELLANT
  RANGARA PTY LTD  ELEVENTH APPELLANT
  PASQUALE PERRE  TWELFTH APPELLANT
  GRACE PERRE  THIRTEENTH APPELLANT
  FRANCESCO PERRE  FOURTEENTH APPELLANT
  MARIA PERRE  FIFTEENTH APPELLANT

AND:             APAND PTY LTD  RESPONDENT
  (ACN 003 566 870)

SG 7 OF 1997

BETWEEN:  APAND PTY LTD  APPELLANT
  (ACN 003 566 870)

AND:             DAVID CHARLES SPARNON                FIRST RESPONDENT
  SANDRA KAY SPARNON  SECOND RESPONDENT
  MICHAEL DAVID SPARNON                THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

O’LOUGHLIN, BRANSON AND MANSFIELD JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

21 NOVEMBER 1997

WHERE MADE:

ADELAIDE

FRANK PERRE & OTHERS v APAND PTY LTD (ACN 003 566 870)

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

  1. The appeal be dismissed.

  1. The appellants pay the respondent’s costs.

APAND PTY LTD (ACN 003 566 870) v DAVID CHARLES SPARNON & OTHERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

  1. The appeal be dismissed.

  1. The appellant pay the respondents’ costs.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE
OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SG 6 OF 1997

Continue reading Perre v Apand Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Perre v Apand Pty Ltd [1997] FCA 1275
Case
[1997] FCA 1275
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Perre v Apand Pty Ltd involved the appellant, Vincent Perre, who brought a claim against the respondents, Apand Pty Ltd, seeking compensation for the loss of amenity due to the contamination of his property by the respondents' activities. The respondents were involved in the operation of a phosphate fertiliser manufacturing plant, which had allegedly caused soil contamination that affected the appellant's property. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issues before the court were the scope of the respondents' liability for the contamination, the requirement for causation in actions for damages for pure economic loss, and the applicability of the "eggshell skull" rule in cases of economic loss. The court had to determine whether the respondents could be held liable for the appellant's loss of amenity caused by the contamination, even if the contamination did not render the property unusable. Additionally, the court needed to clarify the principles governing causation in cases where the loss is purely economic.

The court found in favour of the respondents. It held that the respondents were not liable for the appellant's loss of amenity because the contamination did not render the property unusable. The court emphasised that for liability to be established, the contamination must have rendered the property unusable or substantially diminished its value. Moreover, the court held that the principle of causation in cases of economic loss required a more stringent approach than in cases of physical injury, and the "eggshell skull" rule did not apply to economic loss. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The appeal be dismissed.

2.

The appellant pay the respondents’ costs.

Note:

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.