Sparnon, David Charles v Apand Pty Ltd - [1996] FCA 1139

Negligence - action by potato grower supplied by first respondent with seed potatoes infected by bacterial wilt - duty of care - whether breach of duty - whether second and third respondents proffered negligent advice as to the management of the disease - assessment of damages - whether losses alleged caused by the first respondent's negligence.

Negligence - duty of care - proximity - claims for purely economic loss - export market for potatoes grown and processed by fourth to eighteenth applicants closed by outbreak of bacterial wilt on the property of a neighbour who had been supplied with infected seed potatoes by the first respondent - whether duty of care owed to fourth to eighteenth applicants by the first respondent - whether duty of care owed to fourth to eighteenth applicants by the second and third respondents when proffering advice to the neighbour as to the management of the disease.

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 - misleading or deceptive conduct - whether misrepresentation made as to source and history of potato seeds to be supplied to a potato grower - whether reliance by the grower on representation.

Trade Practices Act 1976, s 52, 82
Fruit and Plant Protection Act 1968 (SA)
Crown Proceedings Act 1992 (SA)
Plant Diseases Act 1914 (WA)
Sale of Goods Act 1895 (SA)

Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837
Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40
Australian Knitting Mills Ltd v Grant (1933) 50 CLR 387
D.F. Lyons Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1991) 100 ALR 468
Ultramares Corporation v Touche (1931) 174 NE 441
Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd v The Dredge "Willemstad" (1976) 136 CLR 529
Bryan v Maloney (1995) 182 CLR 609
Seas Sapfor Forests Pty Ltd v ETSA, judgment 9 August 1996 (unreported)
In re Montagu's Settlement Trusts [1987] 1 Ch 264
re Chisum Services Pty Ltd (1982) 7 ACLR 641
San Sebastian Pty Ltd v The Minister (1986) 162 CLR 340
Liesbosch, Dredger v Edison, S.S. (Owners) [1933] AC 449
Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341;156 ER 145

Matter No. SG 28 of 1994

DAVID CHARLES SPARNON & OTHERS v APAND PTY LTD & OTHERS

von Doussa J
Adelaide
20 December 1996

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
  )
SOUTH AUSTRALIAN DISTRICT REGISTRY )
  )
GENERAL DIVISION                  )   No. SG 28 of 1994

BETWEEN: DAVID CHARLES SPARNON
First Applicant

SANDRA KAY SPARNON
Second Applicant

MICHAEL DAVID SPARNON
Third Applicant

FRANK PERRE
Fourth Applicant

CATERINA PERRE
Fifth Applicant

PASQUALE PERRE
Sixth Applicant

MARY PERRE
Seventh Applicant

GUISEPPE DOMENICO PERRE
Eighth Applicant

MARIA PERRE
Ninth Applicant

JIM PERRE
Tenth Applicant

FRANCES PERRE
Eleventh Applicant

WARRUGA FARMS PTY LTD
Twelfth Applicant

PERRE'S VINEYARDS PTY LTD
Thirteenth Applicant

RANGARA PTY LTD
Fourteenth Applicant

PASQUALE PERRE
Fifteenth Applicant

GRACE PERRE
Sixteenth Applicant

FRANCESCO PERRE

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Sparnon, David Charles v Apand Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1996] FCA 1139
Decision Date: 20 DECEMBER 1996

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Sparnon v Apand Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, David Charles Sparnon, a potato grower, brought an action against the first defendant, Apand Pty Ltd, for supplying seed potatoes infected with bacterial wilt. Additionally, he sought damages from the second and third defendants, claiming they provided negligent advice on managing the disease. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the first defendant breached a duty of care by supplying infected seed potatoes and whether the second and third defendants were negligent in their advice regarding the management of the disease. Furthermore, the court had to determine if the losses claimed by the plaintiff were indeed caused by the negligence of the first defendant.

The court found that the first defendant did breach a duty of care by supplying seed potatoes infected with bacterial wilt. It was established that the infection led to significant crop losses for the plaintiff. Regarding the advice provided by the second and third defendants, the court held that they were not negligent in their guidance. The court concluded that the advice given was appropriate under the circumstances and did not contribute to the plaintiff's losses. Consequently, the plaintiff's claims against the second and third defendants were dismissed. The court then proceeded to assess the damages, finding that while some of the losses were attributable to the first defendant's negligence, not all of the claimed damages were caused by it.

The final orders of the court were that the first defendant was liable for damages resulting from the supply of infected seed potatoes, while the second and third defendants were not liable for any part of the damages claimed. The exact amount of damages was to be determined in subsequent proceedings.

Orders