Schneider v Hoechst Schering Agrevo Pty Ltd

The case of Schneider v Hoechst Schering Agrevo Pty Ltd involved the applicants, Schneider, contesting the liability and quantum of damages against the respondents, Hoechst Schering Agrevo Pty Ltd, in relation to the alleged adverse effects of the herbicide Puma S on wheat crops during the 1996 season. The matter was heard over three weeks, with initial discussions around splitting the issues of liability and quantum into separate hearings. However, the respondents objected to this proposal, leading to the hearing proceeding on all issues. Near the end of the third week, complications arose regarding the evidence of a witness proposed by Hoechst on the issue of damages, necessitating the deferral of further evidence and submissions on damages until a later date. Consequently, final submissions were limited to the question of liability, with an agreement that if the applicants succeeded on this issue, the proceedings would be reconvened to address damages.

The court was required to decide several legal and factual issues, including the general nature and function of Puma S, the evidence relating to the 1996 wheat crop of eight wheat-growers, the conclusions of various expert witnesses, and the trials carried out on Puma S before the 1996 season. The court also needed to assess the efficacy of Puma S in eradicating weeds such as black oats and its impact on wheat crops when applied at the recommended rate. Furthermore, the court had to determine whether Puma S's use led to any adverse effects on the wheat crops, which formed the basis of the applicants' claims.

In delivering the judgment, the court concluded that Puma S is a post-emergent selective herbicide designed to eradicate weeds without affecting wheat crops, containing fenoxaprop-p-ethyl and fenchlorazole-ethyl. It found that while Puma S effectively eradicated black oats when applied at the recommended rate, there were no complaints regarding its efficacy. However, the court determined that the applicants failed to prove that Puma S had any adverse effect on the wheat crops. The court dismissed the application, cross-claims, and ordered the applicants to pay the respondents' and cross-respondents' costs of the proceedings.