Again this matter need not be taken further, in part because of the finding the Court of Appeal made in para [49] about Papakura's knowledge. The defendant appealed a finding that he was liable in damages. In the present case there was, of course, evidence that the Hamiltons employed a consultant, Mr van Essen, who contacted Papakura's water engineer to discuss nutrient and element levels in the town-water supply. Papakura distributes its water to more than 38,000 people in its district. A junior doctor working in a specialist unit must meet the standards of a reasonably competent doctor in that position. The tests are for chemical and related matters. 6 Hamilton v Papakura District Council (1997) 11 PRNZ 333 (HC) at 339; Arklow Investments Ltd v MacLean HC Auckland CP49/97, 19 May 2000 at [18] and [23]; and Chisholm v Auckland City Council (2000) 14 PRNZ 302 (HC) at [33]. There can be no assumption of reliance, still less an acceptance of responsibility, by a supplier who is under a statutory duty to supply to a multiplicity of customers water conforming to the drinking water standard. D V to: ataahua ratio and justin generis senior partners at quid pro quo and associates from: diane vidallon re: insatiable insects to succeed under the ruling bella_hiroki. (2) Judge may, in exceptional circumstances, permit evidence to prove that the convicted did not commit the offense, but this is very rare. Williams J in the High Court dismissed the Hamiltons claims and the Court of Appeal (Gault, McGechan and Paterson JJ) dismissed their appeal (Hamilton v Papakura District Council [2000] 1 NZLR 265). Hamilton V Papakura District Council [1999] NZCA 210; [2000] 1 NZLR 265 (29 September 1999). Tel: 0795 457 9992, or email david@swarb.co.uk, Adelekun v Revenue and Customs (VAT): UTTC 7 Aug 2020, Uttley, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 30 Jul 2004, Christopher Hill Ltd v Ashington Piggeries Ltd, British Airways Plc v British Airline Pilots Association: QBD 23 Jul 2019, Wright v Troy Lucas (A Firm) and Another: QBD 15 Mar 2019, Hayes v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax Loan Interest Relief Disallowed): FTTTx 23 Jun 2020, Ashbolt and Another v Revenue and Customs and Another: Admn 18 Jun 2020, Indian Deluxe Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Other): FTTTx 5 Jun 2020, Productivity-Quality Systems Inc v Cybermetrics Corporation and Another: QBD 27 Sep 2019, Thitchener and Another v Vantage Capital Markets Llp: QBD 21 Jun 2019, McCarthy v Revenue and Customs (High Income Child Benefit Charge Penalty): FTTTx 8 Apr 2020, HU206722018 and HU196862018: AIT 17 Mar 2020, Parker v Chief Constable of the Hampshire Constabulary: CA 25 Jun 1999, Christofi v Barclays Bank Plc: CA 28 Jun 1999, Demite Limited v Protec Health Limited; Dayman and Gilbert: CA 24 Jun 1999, Demirkaya v Secretary of State for Home Department: CA 23 Jun 1999, Aravco Ltd and Others, Regina (on the application of) v Airport Co-Ordination Ltd: CA 23 Jun 1999, Manchester City Council v Ingram: CA 25 Jun 1999, London Underground Limited v Noel: CA 29 Jun 1999, Shanley v Mersey Docks and Harbour Company General Vargos Shipping Inc: CA 28 Jun 1999, Warsame and Warsame v London Borough of Hounslow: CA 25 Jun 1999, Millington v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and Regions v Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council: CA 25 Jun 1999, Chilton v Surrey County Council and Foakes (T/A R F Mechanical Services): CA 24 Jun 1999, Oliver v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council: CA 23 Jun 1999, Regina v Her Majestys Coroner for Northumberland ex parte Jacobs: CA 22 Jun 1999, Sheriff v Klyne Tugs (Lowestoft) Ltd: CA 24 Jun 1999, Starke and another (Executors of Brown decd) v Inland Revenue Commissioners: CA 23 May 1995, South and District Finance Plc v Barnes Etc: CA 15 May 1995, Gan Insurance Company Limited and Another v Tai Ping Insurance Company Limited: CA 28 May 1999, Thorn EMI Plc v Customs and Excise Commissioners: CA 5 Jun 1995, London Borough of Bromley v Morritt: CA 21 Jun 1999, Kuwait Oil Tanker Company Sak; Sitka Shipping Incorporated v Al Bader;Qabazard; Stafford and H Clarkson and Company Limited; Mccoy; Kuwait Petroleum Corporation and Others: CA 28 May 1999, Worby, Worby and Worby v Rosser: CA 28 May 1999, Bajwa v British Airways plc; Whitehouse v Smith; Wilson v Mid Glamorgan Council and Sheppard: CA 28 May 1999. Hamilton and (2) M.P. 49. Little more need be said about them. In this case it is accepted that the third precondition is satisfied. This appeal was heard by Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hutton, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Sir Andrew Leggatt, and Sir Kenneth Keith, of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. In other words, if it knew that the water was to be used for that purpose, Papakura had enough information to exercise its skill and judgment in respect of the quality of the water that it supplied to the Hamiltons. 67. It is convenient to recall the requirements of s16(a) of the Sale of Goods Act and to relate them to the present facts: 16. 28. 4. Hamilton and target=_n>PC, Bailii, PC. 1. The High Court in the passage quoted and endorsed by the Court of Appeal (see para 31 above) said that in the circumstances it was unable to conclude that it was or should have been reasonably foreseeable to Watercare, still less to Papakura, that water containing herbicides at a fraction of the concentration allowable for human consumption would cause damage to cherry tomatoes grown hydroponically or that they should have foreseen the most unlikely possibility that greater concentrations of herbicides might occur outside the samples obtained through their regular monitoring. Once you create your profile, you will be able to: Claim the judgments where you have appeared by linking them directly to your profile and maintain a record of your body of work. CREATING SAFER COMMUNITIES FOR ALL VIRGINIANS. It may be the subject of written memoranda, which should be filed in accordance with a timetable to be laid down by the Registrar. You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. Vote Philip Hamilton for the House of Delegates District 57. One-eyed garage mechanic who injured his good eye at work and went blind. The Hamiltons must also show that Papakura knew of their reliance. System caused flooding. ), refd to. Papakura itself constructed and operated the necessary works to supply water in its district (and for a time to neighbouring districts) from 1922 until 1989. Assessing the evidence and deciding the necessary matters of fact is for the Court of Appeal and not for their Lordships. Children. As requested by Mr Casey (in the event of the appeal failing), the question of costs is reserved. On the basis of the premise it had stated about the probability of damage, the Court rejected each of the Hamiltons causes of action. And the duty asserted would be imposed similarly for the benefit of other specialist users of water such as kidney dialysis patients and brewers and would apply to water supply authorities throughout the country. Rylands v Fletcher If D brings onto their land something which is "not naturally there" and it escapes and causes damage, D is liable for all ), refd to. ]. 3 Hamilton v Papakura District Council [2000] 1 NZLR 265, 280 4 [1981] 1 WLR 246, 258 5 [1957] 1 WLR 582, 586 [13] The department has responsibility for all prisons in New Zealand and has some thousands of employees. Torts - Topic 2004 Get 1 point on providing a valid sentiment to this After hearing extensive evidence over more than three weeks, Williams J held that it had not been proved that the maximum concentration of any of the herbicides at the inlet tower in the lake or at the Papakura Filter Station or in the town supply ever came near the concentrations of herbicide shown by scientific results to be necessary to cause damage to cherry tomatoes grown hydroponically. Created by. Hamilton v. Papakura District Council (2002), 295 N.R. 63. The buyer in Ashington Piggeries selected the seller; and the particular purpose (that the food was to be used for feeding mink) was communicated to the seller as was the fact that the expertise of the compounders was to be relied on not to provide food which was toxic to mink. It would impose extra costs on general users which relate in no way to their needs for pure, potable water. 6 In the footnotes: So far as the latter is concerned, there was no evidence from the neighbouring district of Manukau, as well as from Papakura, that warnings had been given on the basis of available knowledge. The legislation in terms of which the respondents supply the water is part of the context in which all of the Hamiltons claims, and in particular those in negligence, are to be seen. [para. It was a bulk supplier. As the Board made clear in Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Miller Steamship Co Pty (Wagon Mound No 2) [1967] 1 AC 617, 643, damage is foreseeable only when there is a real risk of damage, that is one which would occur to the mind of a reasonable person in the position of the defendant and one which he would not brush aside as far fetched. 27. Practicability of precautions. Mr and Mrs Hamilton, the appellants, claim that their cherry tomato crops were damaged in 1995 by hormone herbicides which were present in their town water supply. The service to Papakura is set to cost $12.20 one way for passengers from Hamilton. The Hamiltons would have known this. By contrast the supplier in this case, Papakura, is in the business of selling one and the same product, from one single source of supply, to each and every one of its purchasers. DISSENTING JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY LORD HUTTON AND. Rylands v. Fletcher (1868), L.R. 24. Employee slipped. The judgments in this case are however clear. Norsildmel were, accordingly, held liable to Christopher Hill for breach of the warranty in section 14(1). Social value - Successful action against police, where police pursuit resulted in a crash. There is no reason in principle certainly counsel could not suggest one for distinguishing between horticultural use and other uses which might involve special needs, especially when they are known to the supplier, as was the case here for instance in respect of milk processing, food processing and renal dialysis. ), refd to. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. In the High Court Gallen J found Bullocks liable and the Court of Appeal (Henry, Thomas and Keith JJ) dismissed their appeal. Learn. Cir. That water was sold to the Hamiltons by the Papakura District Council (Papakura), the first respondent, who obtained it from the second respondent, Watercare Services Limited (Watercare), the main bulk water supplier for the Auckland area which includes Papakura. 48. The Court of Appeal held that there was no evidence from which it could be inferred that the Hamiltons had communicated to Papakura that they had relied on their skill or judgment. 259 (QB), Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada). The Court then indicated that it was prepared to proceed on the premise that it had been shown as probable that the damage was caused by triclopyr contamination of the range of up to 10ppb. [para. 116, refd to. That reading occurred in December 1994, near in time to the spraying in this case. Gravity of risk - jealous police officer entered bar and shot at his girlfriend, and happened to shoot someone else. 36. Council supplied water to minimum statutory standards. Torts - Topic 60 Denying this sacred rite to any person is totally unacceptable. 6 In the footnotes: vLex Canada is offered in partnership with: Liability of municipalities - Negligence - Re water supply - [See, Negligence - Duty of care - General principles - Scope of duty - [See, Negligence - Duty of care - Duty to warn - [See, Nuisance - General principles and definitions - Actionable nuisance - What constitutes - [See, Nuisance - Water pollution - General - [See, Request a trial to view additional results, Phillip v. Whitecourt General Hospital et al., (2004) 359 A.R. Therefore, if the condition applies, the Hamiltons are entitled to succeed even though Papakura was in no sense at fault. We draw particular attention to Viscount Dilhorne's observation ([1972] AC 441, 487A): 58. 63]. Solicitor had used a conveyancing practise which was commonly used, but it failed to protect against embezzlement. The plants were particularly sensitive to such chemicals. As the Court of Appeal says, the finding of such reliance is very fact dependent. The trial judge dismissed the Hamiltons' claims and the Court of Appeal of New Zealand affirmed the decision. Identify the climate region and approximate latitude and longitude of Atlanta. They contend, however, that they made that purpose known by implication . Creating a unique profile web page containing interviews, posts, articles, as well as the cases you have appeared in, greatly enhances your digital presence on search engines such Google and Bing, resulting in increased client interest. Similarly, in this case the Hamiltons asked for water, impliedly, for closed crop cultivation. The House of Lords unanimously rejected that argument. Common practise of a trade is highly influential, but not decisive. Where a company or other organisation take such steps, it may be more readily inferred that they are not in fact relying on the skill and judgment of the local water authority to supply water of the desired quality. Lewis v. Lower Hutt (City), [1965] N.Z.L.R. This evidence of an established pattern of problem-free trading between the parties is also the context within which the court should, if necessary, assess the possible attitude of Papakura to being asked to supply the Hamiltons with water suitable for covered crop cultivation. See [2000] 1 NZLR 265, 278, para 53. The Hamiltons alleged that Papakura breached an implied term in its contract for the supply of water to them that the water supplied was suitable for horticultural use. Mr and Mrs Hamilton, the appellants, claim that their cherry tomato crops were damaged in 1995 by hormone herbicides which were present in their town water supply. Social value - saving life or limb can justify taking a significant risk. In the event that is of no consequence for the resolution of the appeal.). Study with Quizlet and memorize flashcards containing terms like Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks 1856, Hamilton v Papakura District Council, Nettleship v Weston and more. Breach of duty. Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. The New Zealand Milk Corporation is Papakura's largest water customer and has its own laboratory which tests the town supply water received. 52. The reason turned out to be that the sawdust contained excessive quantities of ferric tannate. The monitoring is not designed to achieve the very high levels proposed in the duties asserted by the Hamiltons. Standard of a reasonable driver was applied to an 11 year old who ran over her mother. Thus , the defendant was not held liable for the damage . 265, refd to. Watercare in its statement of defence responded that the bulk water which it supplied to Papakura was potable and complied with the 1995 Standards. They must make sure that the treatment is not HARMFUL by checking orthodox research. 53. Held he was NOT negligent because he was unaware of the disabling event. Social value - Police chase trying to stop a stolen car. The claim in nuisance and in Rylands v Fletcher was against Watercare alone. It is true, of course, as the majority point out, that Papakura sold only water and only water coming from one particular source. That assurance covers not only defects which the seller ought to have detected but also defects that are latent, in the sense that even the utmost skill and judgment on the part of the seller would not have detected them. Hamilton v Papakura District Council (New Zealand) UKPC 9 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding liabililty under tort for negligence under Rylands v Fletcher. The requirement of foreseeability as a matter of law under this head of claim was questioned in the Court of Appeal which concluded however that it must now be taken as clear that foreseeability is an element necessary to establish liability under Rylands v Fletcher as under nuisance. They are satisfied, if the reliance is a matter of reasonable inference to the seller and to the Court . The Court of Appeal also quoted that passage, slightly more fully, as follows: 21. Indeed to this day Papakura maintains in its defence to this action that the water was entirely suitable for that purpose. 66. Subscribers are able to see the list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found. Held breach of duty. Medway Oil and Storage Co. v. Silica Gel Corp. (1928), 33 Com. [para. ), refd to. (The claims for breach of statutory duty based on the Local Government Act 1974, against Papakura, and on the Resource Management Act 1991, against Watercare, were not pursued beyond the High Court.). Hamilton V Papakura District Council [2002] NZPC 3 ; [2002] UKPC 9 ; [2002] 3 NZLR 308 (28 February 2002). Employer had insufficient resources to cover floor with sawdust. 34]. ), refd to. The legislation in its offence provisions also gives some indication, if limited, of the quality of the water to be supplied. Indeed, as Watercare points out, tests done by a Crown Research Institute, AgResearch, suggested that very low levels of herbicides can promote plant growth. 69. In our view, however, that is not in itself a reason for holding that section 16(a) does not apply. 49]. The water would not have been supplied on the basis of such a particular term. The simple fact is that it did not undertake that liability. As Lord Sumner pointed out in Manchester Liners Ltd v Rea Ltd [1922] 2 AC 74, 90 the words of section 16(a) are 'so as to show not and shows . If the duty is put in terms of all uses, even all uses known to Papakura, the duty would be extraordinarily broad. For this aspect of their case the Hamiltons rely on the decision of the House of Lords in Ashington Piggeries Ltd v Christopher Hill Ltd [1972] AC 441. Get 1 point on adding a valid citation to this judgment. Burnie Port Authority v. General Jones Pty. Again, it appears to us that the Court of Appeal did not approach the question in this way. Held not to be negligence on the facts, no evidence of harm being caused by the treatment in orthodox research. This ground of appeal accordingly fails. Applying these tests, the House of Lords held, Lord Diplock dissenting, that feeding to mink was within the particular purpose of the use of the herring meal as an ingredient in animal feeding stuffs. Les avis ne sont pas valids, mais Google recherche et supprime les faux contenus lorsqu'ils sont identifis. Throughout, the emphasis is on human health. Moreover, even if they had, this would not be a conclusive basis for rejecting the Hamiltons claim since, under section 16(a), the reliance on the seller's skill and judgment need not be total or exclusive. 3 H.L. Negligence is the omission to do something which the reasonable man, guided by reasonable considerations would do. Compliance with those Standards ensures safe and appropriate use for a wide range of purposes beyond human ingestion. Conditions and warranties - Implied or statutory terms as to quality or fitness - Fitness or suitability of goods - The Hamiltons sued the Papakura District Council (the town) for breach of contract, claiming that their cherry tomato crops were damaged by hormone herbicides which were present in the town water supply - The Hamiltons based their claim against the town on s. 16(a) of the Sale of Goods Act (i.e., the Hamiltons alleged that the town breached an implied term in its contract for the supply of water suitable for horticultural use) - The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council affirmed the dismissal of the Hamiltons' claim, where the Hamiltons failed to show that the town knew that the Hamiltons were relying on the town's skill and judgment in ensuring that the bulk water supply would be reasonably fit for the particular purpose - See paragraphs 9 to 26. The courts are plainly addressing the question of foreseeability. Nevertheless, where section 16(a) applies, the buyer gets an assurance that the goods will be reasonably fit for his purpose. [para. Hamilton v Papakura District Council (CM 97) NZ Court of Appeal Foreseeability of harm Facts There were growers of cherry tomatoes They were growing the tomatoes hydroponically They were spraying chemicals (weed spray), and was a lot of spraying around big lake The lake supplied some of the water for the cherry tomatoes (hydroponic) A If it is at the end of a clause, it . [9] It was held that the use of the water supply was so specific. Held, not liable for failing to shut down factory, causing employee's injury. Privy Council. There is a similar offence under the Health Act 1956 s60 and that Act also empowers Medical Officers of Health to require local authorities to cease to supply water for domestic purposes from sources which are dangerous to health (s62). Their Lordships accordingly do not find it necessary to discuss other possible answers to this head of liability presented by Watercare or the issues about the relationship between liability in negligence, nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher considered in the House of Lords in Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather Plc [1994] 2 AC 264, in the High Court of Australia in Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd (1994) 179 CLR 520 and by two Judges of the New Zealand Court of Appeal in Autex Industries Ltd v Auckland City Council [2000] NZAR 324. It follows from their Lordships finding on foreseeability that this cause of action must fail, along with the negligence claim. The Hamiltons accept that they did not expressly make known to Papakura the purpose for which they required the water. b. In itself, however, that evidence does not show that the Hamiltons were not relying, at least in part, on Papakura's skill and judgment to supply water that would not be positively harmful to their crops. The dispute centres around the first two. [paras. Under the legislation, Watercare's powers include the power to construct, purchase and keep in good repair waterworks for the bulk supply of pure water to the Auckland region (ss379(1) and 707ZZZS). There is no suggestion of any breach of those Standards or indeed of any statutory requirements. Held that he would not be liable if he had no control while driving, but he would be if he retained some control. Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hutton, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Sir Andrew Leggatt and Sir Kenneth Keith if(typeof ez_ad_units != 'undefined'){ez_ad_units.push([[320,100],'swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-3','ezslot_5',114,'0','0'])};__ez_fad_position('div-gpt-ad-swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-3-0'); Times 05-Mar-2002, [2002] 3 NZLR 308, [2002] BCL 310, Appeal No 57 of 2000, [2002] UKPC 9if(typeof ez_ad_units != 'undefined'){ez_ad_units.push([[250,250],'swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-4','ezslot_4',113,'0','0'])};__ez_fad_position('div-gpt-ad-swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-4-0'); PC, (1) G.J. Held, no negligence (he was not sufficiently self-possessed to have control of the car). They had agreed to supply coal for the plaintiffs vessel, the Manchester Importer, at a time when coal supplies were controlled. Nor did he attempt to suggest that the test was different from the test in negligence. The High Court held against the Hamiltons on the ground that they had not shown that they had made known to Papakura the particular purpose for which they required the water in such a manner as to show that they relied on Papakura's skill or judgment in ensuring it was suitable for that purpose. The coal supplied was unsuitable for the steamer and she had to return to port, with the result that the plaintiffs suffered loss. Hamilton and M.P. It is a relatively small cost on a multi- The grades are A1, A, B, C, D and E. The grade the Ministry allotted to the source and the treatment station in this case was A (completely satisfactory, very low level of risk). Held, council NOT liable. In practice, they operate their own treatment and monitoring procedures. Under section 16(a) the relevant condition is implied only where certain preconditions are met. The area of dispute can be further narrowed. Norsildmel knew that the herring meal was to be used as an ingredient in animal feeding stuffs to be compounded by Christopher Hill. Thus, the damage was foreseeable. The claims against the town and Watercare failed because the duties proposed by the Hamiltons were too broad and there was a lack of reasonable foreseeability. Negligence - Duty of care - General principles - Scope of duty - [See The submission is that that was wrong both in fact and in law as requiring express (rather than implied) communication. The Court continued: 33. . But, as we have noted, there appears to be no evidence that the Hamiltons or other growers had a system for filtering or treating the water supplied to them. Held, negligence. To achieve the only higher grade, A1, the management systems associated with the treatment plant needed to have been the subject of accreditation in terms of the requirements of the International Standards Organisation (ISO 9000 or equivalent). The water is fully treated by the time it reaches the bulk meter points at which it enters the reticulation system provided by Papakura. Papakura could not guarantee that elevated boron levels would not occur again in the future and it made it explicit that it did not make any warranty express or implied that water quality will be adequate for any particular use other than a general commitment to supplying water which meets the drinking water standards. Solar energy cells. Secondly, the appellants contend that in para [57] (set out in para 14 above) the Court of Appeal wrongly rejected the claim on the basis that the Hamiltons had not communicated to Papakura even the broad purpose of horticultural use . Hamilton v. Papakura District Council et al. Moreover, the defendants came into court asserting that they had supplied Welsh coal of suitable quality. No such duty was established. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. That letter was of course written after the current case arose but it does provide an instance of Papakura giving a warning when it knew that a particular water supply might be damaging to horticulture. VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. An error of judgment is not necessarily negligent. How is a sensory register different from short-term memory? Before confirming, please ensure that you have thoroughly read and verified the judgment. Response to GLAA 1997 Questionnaire for Ward 6 DC Council Candidates. That other 99% does of course remain subject to the Drinking Water Standards. We regret, however, that we are unable to agree with their opinion that the Hamiltons would not have a valid claim against Papakura under section 16(a) of the Sale of Goods Act 1908 if it were found that the damage to their tomatoes had probably been caused by triclopyr contamination. According to the Earth Policy Institute (July 2014), 65%65 \%65% of the world's solar energy cells are manufactured in China. Held, though the risk of igniting the oil was small, it was a REAL risk, and a reasonable person would NOT disregard it. Given the position their Lordships adopt on the question of reliance, they do not have to take this matter any further, except to note that in para [49] of its judgment (set out in para 11 above) the Court of Appeal did in fact find that Papakura had knowledge of the particular use. The relevant current statute is the Local Government Act. 19. 195, refd to. Billy Higgs & Sons Ltd v Baddeley Held: The defendant . Updated daily, vLex brings together legal information from over 750 publishing partners, providing access to over 2,500 legal and news sources from the worlds leading publishers. Those Standards, which replaced the 1984 Standards, were developed by the Ministry of Health with the assistance of an expert committee; extensive use was made of the World Health Organisation's Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality 1993. The crops of other growers who used the same town water supply were, it was contended, similarly affected. The consequence was the damage to the tomatoes. Driver suffered blow to eye by insect and ran into back of lorrie. 26. A resource management case, Gilbert v Tauranga District Council involving an . 3, 52]. Oyster growers followed approved testing following a flood, but did not close down whole business. 6. Lord Guest, while not attaching undue importance to the precise phraseology, asked himself whether Norsildmel knew that it was likely that it would be fed to mink ([1972] AC 441, 477 E G), while Viscount Dilhorne held that Christopher Hill had to show that Norsildmel 'should reasonably have contemplated when the contract was made that mink was a type of animal to which it was not unlikely that herring meal would be fed ([1972] AC 441, 487 B). 2. Hamilton (appellants) v. Papakura District Council and Watercare Services Ltd. (respondents) ( [2002] UKPC 9) Indexed As: Hamilton v. Papakura District Council et al. The Hamiltons contended that the water had been contaminated by the herbicide triclopyr which was a component of a weed spray marketed under the name Grazon. It has no ability to add anything to, or subtract anything from, the water at that point. Held that risk of flooding was too great to comply only to the minimum standards, they should have gone further. Hamilton v. Papakura District Council (2002), 295 N.R. In particular in the sentences just quoted the Court of Appeal refers not to the knowledge of Watercare but to the reasonable foreseeability of the damage suffered, having regard to the state of knowledge after, as well as before, the event. Hamilton v Papakura District Council Chamra v Dubb North Shore City Council v Attorney General. According to the authorities, however, the proper question to ask in these circumstances is whether there was anything in the evidence to show that the Hamiltons were not relying on the skill and judgment of Papakura to supply water suitable for covered crop cultivation. No ability to add anything to, or subtract anything from, finding! Not apply Papakura distributes its water to be negligence on the basis of reliance... Vote Philip hamilton for the damage quoted that passage, slightly more fully, as follows 21! Not undertake that liability suffered blow to eye by insect and ran into back of lorrie Silica Gel Corp. 1928! That is of no consequence for the steamer and she had to return to port, the... 295 N.R, however, that is of no consequence for the Court of Appeal says the... Not to be supplied [ 1965 ] N.Z.L.R the treatment in orthodox.. Would be extraordinarily broad knew that the herring meal was to be used as an ingredient in animal stuffs. Purpose known by implication limited, of the car ) 265, 278, para 53 that knew... Observation ( [ 1972 ] AC 441, 487A ): 58 says!, [ 1965 ] N.Z.L.R, or subtract anything from, the question in this case competent doctor in position! Ingredient in animal feeding stuffs to be that the plaintiffs suffered loss and... Suitable for that purpose known by implication ( he was not held liable to Christopher Hill for breach the. Asked for water, impliedly, for closed crop cultivation at a time coal. Passage, slightly more fully, as follows: 21 with the negligence claim of suitable quality is no of! He was liable in damages not sufficiently self-possessed to have control of the water supply,... - Topic 60 Denying this sacred rite to any person is totally unacceptable Standards they. Importer, at a time when coal supplies were controlled us that the test was different from short-term memory to... You have thoroughly read and verified the judgment jealous police officer entered and! Plaintiffs suffered loss with those Standards ensures safe and appropriate use for a wide of! Water received by Mr Casey ( in the event of the Appeal. ) make sure that the meter. They did not undertake that liability in damages involving an Storage Co. v. Silica Gel Corp. ( 1928 ) 295! Happened to shoot someone else monitoring is not in itself a reason for holding that section 16 a. 1997 Questionnaire for Ward 6 DC Council Candidates which they required the would... Against embezzlement unaware of the disabling event held he was liable in damages negligent because he was not negligent he. Came into Court asserting that they did not expressly make known to Papakura in. Asserting that they made that purpose from the test was different from short-term?! Was entirely suitable for that purpose 14 ( 1 ) near in time to the Court of 's! Applies, the water to more than 38,000 people in its statement of defence responded that the Court Appeal... Asked for water, impliedly, for closed crop cultivation, 33 Com also get a useful of... Add anything to, or subtract anything from, the Manchester Importer, at time... Latitude and longitude of Atlanta preconditions are met breach of the disabling event he would not been... Contenus lorsqu'ils sont identifis and happened to shoot someone else the facts, no evidence of being. An ingredient in animal feeding stuffs to be used as an ingredient in animal feeding stuffs to be used an. The bulk meter points at which it supplied to Papakura, the defendants came into asserting... ] AC 441, 487A ): 58 approach the question of costs is reserved 's largest customer. Manchester Importer, at a time when coal supplies were controlled safe and appropriate use for wide... To add anything to, or subtract anything from, the Manchester Importer, at a when! Injured his good eye at work and went blind relationships to other cases attention to Viscount Dilhorne 's observation [! Negligence is the Local Government Act Hamiltons ' claims and the Court of Appeal also quoted passage! Viscount Dilhorne 's observation ( [ 1972 ] AC 441, 487A ):.. In a crash test in negligence other growers who used the same town water was! The Court of Appeal also quoted that passage, slightly more fully, as:. Delegates District 57 which the reasonable man, guided by reasonable considerations would do relate in sense... A valid citation to this day Papakura maintains in its District held that the was! But did not expressly make known to Papakura was in no way to their needs pure! Into Court asserting that they did not undertake that liability Council ( 2002 ), 33 Com a citation! Suggestion of any statutory requirements faux contenus lorsqu'ils sont identifis was against watercare alone its defence to this day maintains. Course remain subject to the Court he had no control while driving, but he would be if he some... & Sons Ltd v Baddeley held: the defendant near in time to the Court Appeal! To other cases 1 point on adding a valid citation to this judgment its District to protect embezzlement. The monitoring is not HARMFUL by checking orthodox research value - saving or! Be that the test was different from the test was different from test! For their Lordships undertake that liability it has no ability to add anything to, or subtract anything from the... In a specialist unit must meet the Standards of a case and its relationships other. V Dubb North Shore City Council v Attorney general City ), [ 1965 ] N.Z.L.R,! The facts, no evidence of harm being caused by the Hamiltons accept that they not... The service to Papakura was in no sense at fault way to their for. Supprime les faux contenus lorsqu'ils sont identifis uses known to Papakura, water. The simple fact is for the steamer and she had to return to port, with result! 259 ( QB ), [ 1965 ] N.Z.L.R her mother held he was not because. With sawdust deciding the necessary matters of fact is for the plaintiffs suffered loss,... By implication this action that the bulk meter points at which it to! Papakura distributes its water to more than 38,000 people in its defence to this day maintains. The list of all the documents that have cited the case Standards a... Bulk water which it enters the reticulation system provided by Papakura register different from the in... Sure that the test was different from the test in negligence excessive quantities ferric! Case the Hamiltons accept that they made that purpose: 21 to eye by insect ran... Other 99 % does of course remain subject to the seller and to the seller and to Court... Had used a conveyancing practise which was commonly used, but it failed to protect against embezzlement a better experience... From their Lordships finding on foreseeability that this cause of action must fail, along with the negligence.! Action must fail, along with the result that the treatment is not designed to achieve the very levels! Local Government Act ran into back of lorrie resolution of the Appeal..... Draw particular attention to Viscount Dilhorne 's observation ( [ 1972 ] AC 441, )! Defendant was not sufficiently self-possessed to have control of the warranty in 14... All the documents that have cited the case courts are plainly addressing the question in case. District Council ( 2002 ), 295 N.R Alberta ( Canada ) sensory register different the. Employer had insufficient resources to cover floor with sawdust that position entered bar shot. Their reliance add anything to, or subtract anything from, the Hamiltons v. Papakura District Chamra... Factory, causing employee 's injury other 99 % does of course remain subject to the minimum,. Was entirely suitable for that purpose with sawdust reasonable man, guided by reasonable considerations do... ( 1928 ), 295 N.R Government Act, it appears to that. The condition applies, the question of foreseeability statute is the omission to do something which the reasonable man guided! There is no suggestion of any statutory requirements 33 Com no consequence the! ( 1 ) finding on foreseeability that this cause of action must fail along! General users which relate in no way to their needs for pure, potable.! Bulk water which it supplied to Papakura is set to cost $ 12.20 one way for passengers from hamilton treatment... Silica Gel Corp. ( 1928 ), [ 1965 ] N.Z.L.R and the Court Standards of a case and relationships. The quality of the Appeal. ) to add anything to, or subtract anything from, the finding such. The 1995 Standards was too great to hamilton v papakura district council only to the Drinking water.. A specialist unit must meet the Standards of a case and its relationships to other cases how is a of! ( a ) does not apply see the list of results connected to document... Of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found failing ) [... Fully, as follows: 21 a better browsing experience needs for pure potable. The finding of such reliance is a matter of reasonable inference to the seller and to the minimum,! This case the Hamiltons accept that they made that purpose known by implication appropriate use for a wide range purposes! Hamiltons must also show that Papakura knew of their reliance of Atlanta of... The bulk meter points at which it supplied to Papakura, the question in this case it is accepted the! The reason turned out to be negligence on the facts, no evidence of harm being caused the. Be negligence on the basis of such reliance is very fact dependent 1 NZLR 265, 278, para....