Riverman Orchards Pty Ltd v Hayden

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT BENDIGO

COMMON LAW DIVISION
MAJOR TORTS LIST

S CI 2015 04571

RIVERMAN ORCHARDS PTY LTD (ACN 087 671 118) (As Trustee for the A&C CACCAVIELLO FAMILY TRUST)	Plaintiff
v
RODNEY JAMES HAYDEN	Defendant

---

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:	[2016] 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…

Riverman Orchards Pty Ltd sued Hayden over the damage caused to their vineyard by herbicide spray drift from Hayden's adjacent property. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary issues were whether the spraying constituted an unreasonable private nuisance and whether the damage caused by the drift was foreseeable and sufficient to establish a breach of duty of care in negligence.

The court examined whether the herbicide spraying was an unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of Riverman Orchards' land, finding that it was given the significant impact on the vineyard. Regarding negligence, the court held that the risk of harm from herbicide drift was foreseeable and the duty of care was breached. The court also assessed the extent of the damage, ruling that the cost of replacing the vineyard and consequential losses were necessary and reasonable. The court considered the cost of remediation, the need for replanting, and the hypothetical yields and prices in a counterfactual scenario, along with past and future income losses. The discount rate applied to the losses was also a point of consideration.

The court concluded that Riverman Orchards were entitled to recover the costs associated with replacing the vineyard and the consequential losses, less any contributory negligence. The final orders included compensation for the total replacement of the vineyard, costs of rehabilitation and mitigation, and the consequential losses, minus the plaintiff's contributory negligence.

Keep reading for free

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established