FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Wilkins v Dovuro Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1816
NEGLIGENCE – Supply of canola seed taken from lines contaminated by weed seeds Canola seed produced in New Zealand by second respondent on behalf of first respondent – Seed supplied to Western Australian farmers – Weeds not known in Western Australian agricultural areas but not prohibited from importation into Western Australia – Losses and expenses sustained by farmers in following recommendations of Western Australian Department of Agriculture – No evidence of an observed weed plant emanating from the seed – Claim for recovery of losses and expenses – Whether first respondent was negligent in failing to ascertain acceptability of the seed in Western Australia and/or warning farmers – Whether second respondent owed a duty of care to farmers – Whether second respondent breached any duty of care.
TRADE PRACTICES – Whether either respondent was under a duty to speak, so that its failure to warn constituted misleading conduct.
SALE OF GOODS – Implied terms – Whether first respondent relied on second respondent’s skill or judgment – Whether seed was of merchantable quality.
Trade Practices Act 1974, s52
Sales of Goods Act 1908 (NZ), s16ROBERT JOHN WILKINS, EILEEN JOYCE WILKINS, TREVOR IAN WILKINS, SUSAN CAROLINE WILKINS and LOCHIEL NOMINEES PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE FOR THE R & E WILKINS FAMILY TRUST all t/as R & E WILKINS v DOVURO PTY LTD, CROP MARKETING NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY LIMITED, DOVURO PTY LTD – First Cross Applicant, CROP MARKETING NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY LIMITED – First Cross Respondent, CROP MARKETING NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY LIMITED – Second Cross Applicant and DOVURO PTY LTD – Second Cross Respondent
NG297 of 1998
WILCOX J
SYDNEY
23 DECEMBER 1999
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NG297 of 1998
BETWEEN:
ROBERT JOHN WILKINS, EILEEN JOYCE WILKINS, TREVOR IAN WILKINS, SUSAN CAROLINE WILKINS and LOCHIEL NOMINEES PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE FOR THE R & E WILKINS FAMILY TRUST all t/as R & E WILKINS
ApplicantsAND:
DOVURO PTY LTD
First RespondentCROP MARKETING NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY LIMITED
Second RespondentDOVURO PTY LTD
First Cross ApplicantCROP MARKETING NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY LIMITED
First Cross RespondentCROP MARKETING NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY LIMITED
Second Cross ApplicantDOVURO PTY LTD
Second Cross RespondentJUDGE:
WILCOX J
DATE OF ORDER:
23 DECEMBER 1999
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Insofar as it relates to the claim against the second respondent, Crop Marketing New Zealand Society Limited, the principal proceeding be dismissed.
2.Each of the cross claims be dismissed.
3.The first cross applicant, Dovuro Pty Limited, pay to the first cross respondent, Crop Marketing New Zealand Society Limited, the costs incurred by the said cross respondent in relation to the proceedings, other than any costs that were incurred only by reason of the joinder of Crop Marketing New Zealand Society Limited as second respondent to the principal proceeding.
4.The applicants, Robert John Wilkins, Eileen Joyce Wilkins, Trevor Ian Wilkins, Susan Caroline Wilkins and Lochiel Nominees Pty Ltd all…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Wilkins v Dovuro 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [1999] FCA 1816
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to determine whether Dovuro Pty Ltd was negligent in supplying the contaminated seed and whether it failed to ascertain the acceptability of the seed in Western Australia or warn the farmers. Additionally, the court examined whether Crop Marketing owed a duty of care to the farmers and whether either party was under a duty to speak, making their failure to warn constitute misleading conduct. The court also considered the sale of goods and whether Dovuro Pty Ltd relied on Crop Marketing's skill or judgment, as well as whether the seed was of merchantable quality.
The court found that there was no evidence of an observed weed plant emanating from the seed and concluded that the claim against Crop Marketing should be dismissed. The court also dismissed the cross claims and ordered that Dovuro Pty Ltd pay Crop Marketing the costs incurred in relation to the proceedings, excluding those costs arising from its joinder as a second respondent. The applicants were ordered to pay Crop Marketing the costs incurred as a consequence of its joinder to the proceeding, including those related to the second cross claim. The claim against Dovuro Pty Ltd was stood over to a directions hearing.
In summary, the court dismissed the claims against Crop Marketing and the cross claims, ordered cost recovery between the parties, and stood over the claim against Dovuro Pty Ltd pending further proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Insofar as it relates to the claim against the second respondent, Crop Marketing New Zealand Society Limited, the principal proceeding be dismissed.
2. Each of the cross claims be dismissed.
3. The first cross applicant, Dovuro Pty Limited, pay to the first cross respondent, Crop Marketing New Zealand Society Limited, the costs incurred by the said cross respondent in relation to the proceedings, other than any costs that were incurred only by reason of the joinder of Crop Marketing New Zealand Society Limited as second respondent to the principal proceeding.
4. The applicants, Robert John Wilkins, Eileen Joyce Wilkins, Trevor Ian Wilkins, Susan Caroline Wilkins and Lochiel Nominees Pty Ltd all trading as R & E Wilkins, pay to Crop Marketing New Zealand Society Limited the costs incurred by Crop Marketing New Zealand Society Limited only as a consequence of its being joined as second respondent to the principal proceeding, including the costs incurred by Crop Marketing New Zealand Society Limited in connection with the second cross claim.
5. Insofar as it relates to the claim against the first respondent, Dovuro Pty Limited, the principal proceeding be stood over to a directions hearing to be held at 9.30am on Thursday, 3 February 2000.
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
Established by: WILCOX J
Full text does not contain this section.