JUDGE:	JOHN DIXON J
WHERE HELD:	BENDIGO
DATES OF HEARING:	24-28, 31 OCTOBER, 1-4, 7-11 NOVEMBER, 13 DECEMBER 2016
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	28 JUNE 2017
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	RIVERMAN ORCHARDS PTY LTD v HAYDEN
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSC 379

---

TORTS — Nuisance – Private – Spray drift damage to neighbouring vineyard because of herbicide spraying – Unreasonable and substantial interference with use and enjoyment of land.

TORTS — Negligence – Pure economic loss arising from herbicide spray drift – Reasonable foreseeability – Scope of duty of care – Risk of harm significant – Causation – Breach established.

DAMAGES — Quantum – Whether cost of total replacement of vineyard and consequential losses necessary and reasonable – No claim for diminution in value of plaintiff’s interest in land – Costs of remediation – Costs of rehabilitation and mitigation – Need for replacement of trellis and irrigation infrastructure – Proper replanting timeline – Hypothetical yields and prices in counterfactual scenario – Past and future income losses – Discount rate.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr D A Klempfner with Mr E J Batrouney	Meerkin & Apel
For the Defendant	Mr C E Shaw with Mr J C Hooper	Meridian Lawyers

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 1

Issues.................................................................................................................................................... 4

Evidence............................................................................................................................................... 5

Submissions regarding liability...................................................................................................... 6

Plaintiff........................................................................................................................................... 6
Defendant....................................................................................................................................... 8

Background facts.............................................................................................................................. 11

Mallee Block................................................................................................................................ 11
The Andrew Peace Wines contract........................................................................................... 14

Issue 1 - Did the 2013 spray drift event occur?............................................................................ 17

Defendant’s contentions............................................................................................................. 17
The defendant’s evidence.......................................................................................................... 18
Other circumstances................................................................................................................... 31
Expert evidence........................................................................................................................... 33
Conclusion - issue 1.................................................................................................................... 35

Issue 2 - Nature and extent of the damage................................................................................... 36

Nature of the chemicals.............................................................................................................. 36
Nature of the damage................................................................................................................. 38
Dr Bell’s opinion................................................................................................................ 38
Ms MacGregor’s opinion.................................................................................................. 40
Mr Whiting’s opinions...................................................................................................... 45
Other evidence................................................................................................................... 47
Joint report and conclave.................................................................................................. 48
Metsulfuron analysis........................................................................................................ 50

Conclusion - issue 2.................................................................................................................... 55

Nuisance Claim................................................................................................................................. 59

Issue 3 - Substantial and unreasonable interference with use and enjoyment of land.... 59
Nuisance - principles.................................................................................................................. 60
Interference......................................................................................................................... 60
Substantial interference.................................................................................................... 61
Unreasonable interference................................................................................................ 61

Conclusion - issue 3.................................................................................................................... 62
Interference......................................................................................................................... 62
Was the interference substantial?.................................................................................... 64
Was the interference unreasonable?............................................................................... 65

Negligence claim.............................................................................................................................. 66

Issue 4 - Was there a duty of care?........................................................................................... 66
Issue 5 - Content of the duty...................................................................................................... 69
Issue 6 - Breach............................................................................................................................ 71
Issue 7 - Causation...................................................................................................................... 74
Contributory negligence............................................................................................................ 78

Damages............................................................................................................................................. 79

Principles...................................................................................................................................... 80
Issue 8 - Is remediation necessary and reasonable................................................................ 90

Issue 13 - Quantum........................................................................................................................ 105

Relevant findings...................................................................................................................... 105
Grape Yields..................................................................................................................... 106
Grape prices..................................................................................................................... 114
Replanting timeline......................................................................................................... 118
Discount rate.................................................................................................................... 120

Rehabilitation/Mitigation costs............................................................................................. 123
Past Income loss........................................................................................................................ 130
Cost of remediation - the cost of replacing the vineyard.................................................... 131
The plaintiff’s claimed quantum................................................................................... 131
Scope of works................................................................................................................. 136
Costing.............................................................................................................................. 145
Conclusion on cost of re-planting the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Riverman Orchards Pty Ltd v Hayden

Details

AGLC: Riverman Orchards Pty Ltd v Hayden [2017] VSC 379
Case: [2017] VSC 379
Decision Date: 28 JUNE 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Riverman Orchards Pty Ltd v Hayden was brought before the court to address the damages suffered by the plaintiff, Riverman Orchards, due to the herbicide spraying conducted by the defendant, Hayden. The dispute involved substantial interference with the plaintiff's vineyard, which was caused by the drift of herbicides from the defendant's property. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, which was tasked with determining the extent of the defendant's liability and the appropriate quantum of damages.

The legal issues at hand required the court to determine whether the herbicide spraying constituted an unreasonable interference with the plaintiff's use and enjoyment of their land, thereby establishing a case of private nuisance. Additionally, the court had to assess if the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff to prevent the spray drift, and if so, whether this duty had been breached. The court also had to consider the extent of the damages that could be claimed by the plaintiff, including whether the cost of replacing the entire vineyard and consequential losses were necessary and reasonable.

The court found that the herbicide spraying was indeed an unreasonable interference with the plaintiff's property, establishing a case of private nuisance. Furthermore, the court determined that the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff and that this duty had been breached. The risk of harm from the herbicide drift was deemed significant, and causation was established. In terms of damages, the court held that the cost of replacing the vineyard and consequential losses were necessary and reasonable, rejecting any claim for diminution in value of the plaintiff’s land. The court further detailed the appropriate method for calculating the damages, including the costs of remediation, rehabilitation, and mitigation, as well as the hypothetical yields and prices in a counterfactual scenario, past and future income losses, and the applicable discount rate.

The final orders of the court mandated that the defendant compensate the plaintiff for the total replacement cost of the vineyard, the costs of rehabilitation and mitigation, and the consequential losses incurred. The court provided a detailed calculation of these costs, taking into account all relevant factors as outlined in the judgment.

Orders