Hamilton v Papakura District Council and Watercare Services Ltd: PC 28 Feb 2002

(New Zealand) The claimants sought damages. The water authority had put in the water supply herbicides which damaged the crops they sought to grow, and which were watered from the supply. The plants were particularly sensitive to such chemicals.
Held: Dismissing the company’s appeal, the water supplier had a general duty to supply water to accepted standards. The water company had done this. The claimant had failed to show that it had brought its particular needs to the attention of the water company, and a claim in contract failed. The Ashington Piggeries case did not apply because in this case there was one supply of one product. Negligence could not be established without accepting a higher duty to some consumers. No such duty was established. The claims in nuisance, of having allowed the escape of materials brought onto their land, failed because there was no forseeability of this damage.


Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hutton, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Sir Andrew Leggatt and Sir Kenneth Keith


Times 05-Mar-2002, [2002] 3 NZLR 308, [2002] BCL 310, Appeal No 57 of 2000, [2002] UKPC 9


PC, (1) G.J. Hamilton and ‘ target=’_n’>PC, Bailii, PC


Sale of Goods Act 1893 14


England and Wales


CitedChristopher Hill Ltd v Ashington Piggeries Ltd HL 1972
Mink farmers had asked a compounder of animal foods to make up mink food to a supplied formula.
Held: There was reliance as to the suitability of the ingredients only.
Lord Diplock said: ‘Unless the Sale of Goods Act 1893 is to be allowed . .
CitedRylands v Fletcher HL 1868
The defendant had constructed a reservoir to supply water to his mill. Water escaped into nearby disused mineshafts, and in turn flooded the plaintiff’s mine. The defendant appealed a finding that he was liable in damages.
Held: The defendant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Utilities, Agriculture, Contract, Negligence, Nuisance, Commonwealth

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.167739