G.J. Hamilton and Another v Papakura District Council and Another
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Sir Kenneth Keith,Lord Hutton,Lord Rodger of Earlsferry |
| Judgment Date | 28 February 2002 |
| Neutral Citation | [2002] UKPC 9 |
| Court | Privy Council |
| Docket Number | Appeal No. 57 of 2000 |
| Date | 28 February 2002 |
[2002] UKPC 9
Present at the hearing:-
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead
Lord Hutton
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry
Sir Andrew Leggatt
Sir Kenneth Keith
Privy Council
[Majority judgment delivered by Sir Kenneth Keith]
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. 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. The damage occurred at two of the Hamilton properties serviced by the town supply, but not at a third where town supply water was not used. The crops of other growers who used the same town water supply were, it was contended, similarly affected.
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). They now appeal to Her Majesty in Council.
Before the Board, as in the Court of Appeal, the claims against Papakura are in contract and negligence and against Watercare are in negligence and nuisance and under the principle in Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330.
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. Watercare's contractors had sprayed gorse with Grazon in part of the catchment area for the lake from which the town water supply was taken. The claim was that the herbicide had contaminated the water in the lake and that that contamination in turn had damaged their tomatoes.
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. In terms of those results, the concentration for triclopyr was at least 10 parts per billion (ppb). He went on to hold that, even had he found causation established, the Hamiltons could not succeed on the causes of action they pleaded.
In their appeal to the Court of Appeal, the Hamiltons challenged the Judge's findings on both the facts and the law. On the facts, the Court of Appeal, having stressed the advantage the Judge had from hearing the witnesses, said, given the pattern of damage not just to the Hamiltons' tomatoes but also to the crops of other horticulturists, that
"There is some merit in the contention that to determine that the Hamiltons had failed to show by scientific proof that their plants were damaged by contaminated water to which they were particularly sensitive was to impose a standard of proof higher than the balance of probabilities."
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. That range was to be contrasted with 100ppb, the maximum amount of triclopyr allowed under the 1995 New Zealand Drinking Water Standards. 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. (There was some question whether the 1984 rather than the 1995 Standards were applicable. In the event that is of no consequence for the resolution of the appeal.)
On the basis of the premise it had stated about the probability of damage, the Court rejected each of the Hamiltons' causes of action. On their appeal to the Board, the Hamiltons accept that, were they to succeed on any or all of the legal arguments, the case should be remitted to the Court of Appeal for it to make the necessary factual findings.
The claim in contract
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. The claim was based on s16(a) of the Sale of Goods Act 1908:
"… there is no implied warranty or condition as to the quality or fitness for any particular purpose of goods supplied under a contract of sale, except as follows:
(a) Where the buyer, expressly or by implication, makes known to the seller the particular purpose for which the goods are required, so as to show that the buyer relies on the seller's skill or judgment, and the goods are of a description which it is in the course of the seller's business to supply (whether he is the manufacturer or not), there is an implied condition that the goods shall be reasonably fit for such purpose:
Provided that in the case of a contract for the sale of a specified article under its patent or other trade name, there is no implied condition as to its fitness for any particular purpose."
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 Court of Appeal, citing Ashington Piggeries Ltd v Christopher Hill Ltd [1972] AC 441, stated that "[it] is, of course, clear that if the reliance of the Hamiltons was communicated to [Papakura] it would not be open to it to deny liability on the ground of ignorance of the precise level of contamination at which the damage would be caused". However, the Court continued, that proposition did not avoid, indeed it emphasised the importance of, the statutory requirement that the particular purpose be made known by the buyer to the seller. The Court then set out matters emphasised by the Hamiltons as communicating the particular purpose and reliance, and it concluded:
"[49] Together this material establishes that the council knew at the relevant time that its town water supply was used for protected crop growing including the use of soil-less techniques, knew growers preferred that water to bore water because of its quality and knew that the catchment area was vulnerable to contamination from (inter alia) pesticides."
While that conclusion supported the Hamiltons' claim, the next, critical sentence and two supporting paragraphs did not:
"[50] There is no evidence, however, that the council knew that growers relied on the water for use with sensitive crops without any testing or treatment in the expectation that the suppliers would ensure that its quality would be adequate for all such special uses.
[51] The evidence was that at no time did Mr or Mrs Hamilton or their predecessors discuss with council officers their water use or special needs. While one of their consultants discussed with the council's water engineer on occasions nutrient and element levels in the town-supply water, he did not communicate any needs or reliance on the part of the Hamiltons.
[52] There was reference to the fact that when Mr and Mrs Hamilton won an award for their tomatoes the Mayor wrote to congratulate them. That, at its highest, translates to knowledge by the council of their activities but it could not amount to communication either of particular needs or reliance."
The Court might have added to para [51] that the consultant testified that he never asked Papakura's engineer about hormone herbicides.
The Court of Appeal considered that the Ashington Piggeries case was distinguishable in principle, emphasising the importance of the particular facts, a matter to which it also referred in relation to other cases cited for the Hamiltons.
Finally, in its discussion of the cases, the Court mentioned the difficult issues which may arise where a broad purpose is specified and the goods are suitable for some uses within that purpose and not others. It concluded its discussion of this head of claim as follows:
"[57] In the present case, the evidence does not establish communication by Mr and Mrs Hamilton to the council even of the broad purpose of horticultural use let alone the special needs purpose of soil-less, cherry tomato growing so that it is unnecessary to investigate whether the water was reasonably fit for wider horticultural use.
[58] We are satisfied the finding of the Judge that the statutory conditions for invoking the implied warranty of suitability were not established was open to him, indeed inevitable."
It is convenient to recall the requirements of s16(a) of the Sale of Goods Act and to relate them to the present facts:
If the Hamiltons expressly or impliedly made known to Papakura the particular purpose for which they required the water
so as to show that they relied on Papakura's skill or judgment (about the fitness of the water for that purpose) and
the goods are of a description which it is in the course of Papakura's business to supply
there is an implied condition that the goods are reasonably fit for the purpose.
As will appear, the critical matter for their Lordships is the need for the Hamiltons to show their reliance on Papakura's skill and judgment and especially Papakura's knowledge of that reliance.
Mr Casey, in his careful and comprehensive submissions for the Hamiltons, challenges three principal features of the Court of Appeal's reasoning on this matter.
The first...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Patience & Nicholson (NZ) Ltd v Cyclone Hardware Pty Ltd
-
Michael John Smith v Fonterra Co-operative Group Ltd
...adequately defined and based on a discernible rational principle” (at [36] per Lord Bingham). 161 Hamilton v Papakura District Council [2002] UKPC 9, [2002] 3 NZLR 308 at [39] per Lord Nicholls, Sir Andrew Leggatt and Sir Kenneth Keith referring to The Wagon Mound (No 2), above n 159, at 6......
-
Smith v Fonterra Co-Operative Group Ltd
...considered archaic. 36 High Court judgement, above n 1, at [58]. 37 Jones, above n 9, at [19–03]. 38 Hamilton v Papakura District Council [2002] UKPC 9, [2002] 3 NZLR 308 at [39] citing Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Miller Steamship Co Pty Ltd (The Wagon Mound) (No 2) [1967] 1 AC 617 (PC) a......
-
Smith v Fonterra Co-Operative Group Ltd
...considered archaic. 36 High Court judgement, above n 1, at [58]. 37 Jones, above n 9, at [19–03]. 38 Hamilton v Papakura District Council [2002] UKPC 9, [2002] 3 NZLR 308 at [39] citing Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Miller Steamship Co Pty Ltd (The Wagon Mound) (No 2) [1967] 1 AC 617 (PC) a......