Valleyfield Pty Ltd v Primac Ltd - [2002] QSC 80

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Valleyfield P/L & Anor v Primac Ltd & Anor [2002] QSC 080

PARTIES: VALLEYFIELD PTY LTD ACN 051 841 279 AS TRUSTEE OF THE PARKER UNIT INVESTMENT TRUST
(plaintiff)
v
PRIMAC LTD ACN 010 023 284 (first defendant)
NETAFIM AUSTRALIA PTY LTD ACN 056 229 755
(second defendant)

FILE NO/S: 344/99

DIVISION: Trial

PROCEEDING: Case Stated

ORIGINATING COURT: Supreme Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON: 25 March 2002

DELIVERED AT: Townsville

HEARING DATE: 18 February 2002-8 March 2002

JUDGES: Cullinane J

ORDER: Judgment given for the first defendant against the plaintiff.
Judgment against the second defendant in the sum of $3,768,276.70.
Consideration to the question of costs adjourned.
Parties to forward to the Court submissions in writing on the issue of costs within fourteen days and parties given liberty to reply within a further seven days.

CATCHWORDS: CONTRACT-TORTS-NEGLIGENCE-DAMAGES-whether the first defendant undertook to design irrigation system-whether implied term to that effect-whether second defendant negligent in failing to properly investigate soils on farm-whether duty of care owed by second defendant to plaintiff in designing of systems-whether plaintiff failed to mitigate losses by adopting another system to produce germination and growth-measure of damages

COUNSEL: J Baulch SC, with T Moon, for the plaintiff
P McMurdo QC, with L Holyoak, for the first defendant
S Doyle SC, R Derrington, for the second defendant

SOLICITORS: Lee Turnbull & Co. for the plaintiff
Barry & Nilsson Lawyers for the first defendant
Clayton Utz, Lawyers for the second defendant

This action which was litigated over a period of three weeks concerns an irrigation system installed on two farms in the Lower Burdekin area on which the Plaintiff carries on small crop farming.

The First Defendant is sued in contract and negligence and the Second Defendant is sued in negligence.

The Plaintiff carries on its farming operations on two farms. One was described in evidence as the home farm (“home farm”) and has been in the Parker family for many years. It was originally a cane farm until the Plaintiff commenced to conduct small farming operations on it growing beans for the first time in the early nineties. The Burstill Road farm (“Burstill Road”) was acquired in 1995 and used to grow beans.

The Plaintiff’s farming operations were conducted by Gary Parker (“Parker”). The evidence satisfies me that the Plaintiff’s farming operations were successful and that the Plaintiff attained better than average crop yields and better than average prices in the market.

The system of irrigation in use on both farms until 1997 was a flood irrigation system. A flood irrigation system has disadvantages, both environmental and economic, when compared to a drip irrigation system. The evidence was that there were two types of drip irrigation systems. The first is a surface drip irrigation system (SDI) and the second is a sub surface drip irrigation system (SSDI). In the first the tapes which carry the water are either on the surface or situated an inch or so below the level of the surface.…

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 Valleyfield Pty Ltd v Primac Ltd

Details

AGLC: Valleyfield Pty Ltd v Primac Ltd [2002] QSC 80
Case: [2002] QSC 80
Decision Date: 25 March 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Valleyfield Pty Ltd initiated legal proceedings against Primac Ltd, alleging breaches of contract and torts related to a failed irrigation system designed for their farm. The case was heard in a higher court where the plaintiff claimed that the first defendant had an implied contractual obligation to design an irrigation system, and that the second defendant was negligent in their investigation of the farm's soil. The plaintiff further alleged that the second defendant owed a duty of care in the design of the irrigation system and that they had failed to mitigate their losses by adopting an alternative system. The court was tasked with determining these issues and assessing the appropriate measure of damages.

The court first examined whether there was an implied term in the contract for the first defendant to design the irrigation system. It was determined that no such term existed, and the plaintiff's claim in this respect was dismissed. Next, the court considered the plaintiff's allegation of negligence against the second defendant for their failure to properly investigate the soil conditions. The court found that the second defendant was indeed negligent in this regard, as they had not fulfilled their duty to conduct a thorough investigation of the soil. The court further held that the second defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff in the design of the irrigation system and had breached this duty by failing to properly investigate the soil conditions. The court then assessed the plaintiff's failure to mitigate their losses by adopting an alternative system, finding that the plaintiff had not taken reasonable steps to mitigate their losses and had therefore failed in this regard.

The court ultimately awarded damages against the second defendant in the sum of $3,768,276.70, while dismissing the plaintiff's claim against the first defendant. The issue of costs was adjourned, with the parties instructed to submit written submissions and replies within specified timeframes. This decision highlights the importance of contractual obligations, the duty of care owed by professionals in their respective fields, and the need for parties to take reasonable steps to mitigate their losses in the event of a breach.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment given for the first defendant against the plaintiff.

Judgment against the second defendant in the sum of $3,768,276.70.

Consideration to the question of costs adjourned.

Parties to forward to the Court submissions in writing on the issue of costs within fourteen days and parties given liberty to reply within a further seven days.

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.

CITATION:	Valleyfield P/L & Anor v Primac Ltd & Anor [2002] QSC 080
PARTIES:	VALLEYFIELD PTY LTD ACN 051 841 279 AS TRUSTEE OF THE PARKER UNIT INVESTMENT TRUST (plaintiff) v PRIMAC LTD ACN 010 023 284 (first defendant) NETAFIM AUSTRALIA PTY LTD ACN 056 229 755 (second defendant)
FILE NO/S:	344/99
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Case Stated
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	25 March 2002
DELIVERED AT:	Townsville
HEARING DATE:	18 February 2002-8 March 2002
JUDGES:	Cullinane J
ORDER:	Judgment given for the first defendant against the plaintiff. Judgment against the second defendant in the sum of $3,768,276.70. Consideration to the question of costs adjourned. Parties to forward to the Court submissions in writing on the issue of costs within fourteen days and parties given liberty to reply within a further seven days.
CATCHWORDS:	CONTRACT-TORTS-NEGLIGENCE-DAMAGES-whether the first defendant undertook to design irrigation system-whether implied term to that effect-whether second defendant negligent in failing to properly investigate soils on farm-whether duty of care owed by second defendant to plaintiff in designing of systems-whether plaintiff failed to mitigate losses by adopting another system to produce germination and growth-measure of damages
COUNSEL:	J Baulch SC, with T Moon, for the plaintiff P McMurdo QC, with L Holyoak, for the first defendant S Doyle SC, R Derrington, for the second defendant
SOLICITORS:	Lee Turnbull & Co. for the plaintiff Barry & Nilsson Lawyers for the first defendant Clayton Utz, Lawyers for the second defendant