(High Court of Australia) The plaintiff farmers sought damages for financial losses incurred after the defendant negligently introduced a disease. Although the disease was not shown to have spread, neighbouring farm owners suffered economic loss by the imposition of a potato marketing ban in Western Australia attributable to the proximity of their farms to the outbreak of the disease, and sued the defendant for what was therefore pure economic loss (the absence of any escape of the disease preventing a claim under Rylands v. Fletcher).
Held: The appeal was allowed with costs. An important criterion for the imposition of liability for economic loss lay in ascertaining the extent to which the plaintiff was vulnerable to incurring loss by reason of the defendant’s conduct, and the extent to which that was or should have been apparent to the defendant.
Kirby J said: ‘As against the approach which I favour, it has been said that the three identified elements are mere ‘labels’. So indeed they are . . Labels are commonly used by lawyers. They help steer the mind through the task in hand.’
Gleeson CJ considered the exclusionary rule (and its distinction between physical and economic loss), but did not need to discuss what exactly happened to the Perre’s potatoes, so as to establish whether it was physical damage. The loss was categorised as pure economic loss. Callinan J said that what happened to the uninfected potatoes ‘may not have been actual physical damage’, but he compared what happened to them with what happens to land which is said to be subject to planning blight.
Judges:
Gleeson CJ, Callinan J, Kirby J
Citations:
(1999) 198 CLR 180, [1999] HCA 36, [1999] 64 ALR 606, [1999] 64 73 ALJR 1190, [1999] 73 ALJR 1190
Links:
Jurisdiction:
Australia
Cited by:
Cited – HM Customs and Excise v Barclays Bank Plc HL 21-Jun-2006
The claimant had served an asset freezing order on the bank in respect of one of its customers. The bank paid out on a cheque inadvertently as to the order. The Commissioners claimed against the bank in negligence. The bank denied any duty of care. . .
Cited – Calvert v William Hill Credit Ltd ChD 12-Mar-2008
The claimant said that the defendant bookmakers had been negligent in allowing him to continue betting when they should have known that he was acting under an addiction. The defendant company had a policy for achieving responsible gambling, . .
Cited – D Pride and Partners (A Firm) and Others v Institute for Animal Health and Others QBD 31-Mar-2009
The claimants sought damages after the loss of business when the defendants’ premises were the source of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease. The organism had escaped from their premises via a broken drain.
Held: Much of the damage claimed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Negligence, Agriculture, Damages
Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.331082
