Case study
What happens when something goes wrong and you find your crop damaged due to the negligent spraying of such chemicals by a neighbouring farm?
This is exactly what happened in the cases of Riverman Orchards Pty Ltd v Hayden [2017] VSC 379 (Riverman Case) and Butler Market Gardens Pty Ltd v GG & PM Burrell Pty Ltd [2018] VSC 768 (Butler Case).
In both of these cases the Court found that the neighbouring farmer had been negligent when they undertook their spraying activities and, as such, the farmer whose crop had been negatively impacted was entitled to a significant amount of damages to compensate them for the loss of the crop. The neighbours were also found to have caused a nuisance.
In the Riverman Case, damages of $7,248,213.76 (inclusive of interest), were awarded for the loss of the grapes, as well as for the loss of income from the vineyard over the next 10 year period until it was back to the same level of production and for the costs to re-establish the damaged vineyard. This represents one of the larger awards of damages for a spray drift event. In the Butler Case, damages of $1,346,570.00 were awarded, representing the loss of sales of the spring onions during the six week period from late July to early September when supplies were low and prices were high.
Determing factors
What was key in establishing an entitlement to damages in these cases was proof of the following:
A. that the spraying had been the cause of the damage to the crop; and
B. that the neighbour has been negligent in undertaking their spraying activities
What to do if you suspect spray drift has occured
The findings in these cases provide some useful guidance on what to do to if you suspect your crop has been impacted by spray drift to ensure you can prove your case.
In particular, what the farmers whose crops had been impacted did correctly in these cases was to:
- monitor their crop regularly;
- take note of spraying activities on neighbouring farms;
- take photos of the damage as soon as it became apparent and in the following days and weeks;
- promptly have their crop inspected by the experts; and
- get samples taken and tested for chemical residue as a matter of priority.
Further, they had kept their own spray records (which is required by the relevant regulatory regime in any event) and crop management records, which assisted in negating a claim that it had been their own spraying and/or other activities that had caused the loss.
How Sharrock Pitman Legal can help?
Our lawyers have experience in acting for Plaintiffs whose farms have been impacted by chemical spraying, so if you ever find yourself the victim of spray drift or other chemical damage, please do not hesitate to contact member of our Litigation Team.
If we can assist you please contact us by email litigation@sharrockpitman.com.au or call 1300 205 506.
The information contained in this article is intended to be of a general nature only and should not be relied upon as legal advice. Any legal matters should be discussed specifically with one of our lawyers.
Liabilityl imited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.
Caroline Callegari is an Associate Principal and leads our Disputes & Litigation team. She has an advisory and advocacy practice in the following areas: Commercial Litigation, corporate and personal disputes, debt recovery and, insolvency and bankruptcy matters. Caroline can be contacted on (03) 8561 3324.
