hamilton v papakura district council
Tom Hamilton Democrat, Ward 6 Candidate for Ward 6 DC Councilmember Special Election: April 29, 1997. See, for example, Hardwick Game Farm [1969] 2 AC 31, 84A-C per Lord Reid. Factors to be taken into account by a reasonable person, to determine if there has been a breach: 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. Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. 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. 55. Hamilton Appellants v. (1) Papakura District Council and (2) Watercare Services Ltd. Respondents FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND --------------- JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL c. What evidence suggest that short-term memory is limited to a few items? Study with Quizlet and memorize flashcards containing terms like Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks 1856, Hamilton v Papakura District Council, Nettleship v Weston and more. This paper outlines the categories of potential legal liability at common law, and in statute. 1. foreseeable risk of injury to plaintiff or class of persons including plaintiff Gravity of risk - special risk to plaintiff should be taken into account if the defendant KNOWS about it. 556 (C.A. Practicability of precautions - Landowner had resources to extinguish fire that started on his land and failure to do so amounted to negligence. Test. 36. Two of the criteria for the grading are that continuous quality monitoring is installed and that the treatment plant should be operated and managed by appropriately qualified personnel. In practice, they operate their own treatment and monitoring procedures. Social value - Successful action against police, where police pursuit resulted in a crash. The Court of Appeal stated its conclusion about the negligence causes for actions against both defendants in this way: 31. According to the Earth Policy Institute (July 2014), 65%65 \%65% of the world's solar energy cells are manufactured in China. 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. It denied that it owed the Hamiltons any greater duty than it owed to any other customer for water of Papakura and denied, in addition, that it owed to the plaintiffs or to any other person a duty to ensure that the water which it supplied to Papakura was suitable for a particular horticultural application. 44. 2. Hamilton v Papakura District Council. Interact directly with CaseMine users looking for advocates in your area of specialization. 2. Sale of Goods Act (U.K.) (1908), sect. They contend, however, that they made that purpose known by implication . 1963). 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. Nature of Proximity authority . (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.). The manager accepted that, if he became aware of users who believed the water was pure enough for their needs and had reason to believe that might not be so, he would feel obliged to advise them of the risk. [9] It was held that the use of the water supply was so specific. Lewis v. Lower Hutt (City), [1965] N.Z.L.R. 1. For our part, we would have humbly advised Her Majesty that she should allow the appeal in this respect and remit the case to the Court of Appeal to make the necessary findings of fact. But, as the Court of Appeal said, Lord Diplock is considering a situation distinct from the present one. Marriage is sacred. Get 2 points on providing a valid reason for the above 42. Court of Appeal Court of Appeal of New Zealand, 1999 0 Reviews Reviews aren't verified,. 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. 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]. We do not make allowances for learner drivers. Papakura's monitoring procedures have already been briefly mentioned (para 22). Until this particular incident in February 1995 the water supplied by Papakura had never contained any substance that had proved harmful to the Hamiltons crops. Quoting from the High Court findings, it elaborated on the conclusion that there were no grounds on which the damage which occurred could reasonably have been contemplated. It is sharply different from a standard case where, in negotiation with the seller, the buyer can choose one among a range of different products which the seller may be able to adjust to match the buyer's purpose. An alternative to lists of cases, the Precedent Map makes it easier to establish which ones may be of most relevance to your research and prioritise further reading. This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. Cammell Laird & Co. v. Manganese Bronze and Brass Co., [1934] A.C. 402 (H.L. (2d) 719 (S.C.C. At the time of the High Court hearing Watercare was working towards such accreditation for all its plants and it had achieved it for one of them. 63]. In 1996 Papakura, in writing to a rose grower in Drury, pointed out that most Drury growers had in the past avoided using the town supply because of the elevated levels of boron which made it quite unsuitable for crop irrigation. 216, footnote 141]. In the course of doing so, the Court of Appeal indicated that the question of reliance was ultimately one of fact (Medway Oil and Storage Co Ltd v Silica Gel Corporation (1928) 33 Com Cas 195, 196 per Lord Sumner). 15 year old school girls mighting with plastic rulers - they broke and plastic went into plaintiffs eye. Proof of negligence - 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 Hamiltons would have known this. 9. Supplying water for the purpose of covered crop cultivation is supplying it for a particular purpose in terms of section 16(a) of the 1908 Act. Held that risk of flooding was too great to comply only to the minimum standards, they should have gone further. 70. 11, 56]. 265, refd to. Hamilton v Papakura District Council [2002] 3 NZLR 308 (Privy Council) . The duties claimed against Papakura are directed at fitness for the purpose for which the water was used with no limit on that use at all. In the next section, we show that the probability distribution for xxx is given by the formula: 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. Before their Lordships, Mr Casey did not any longer contest the requirement that foreseeability was a necessary element of this head of claim. 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. 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]. Donate. AG v PYA Quarries Ltd [1957] 2 QB 169, 184 per Romer LJ (CA) cited in Stephen Todd (ed) The Law of Torts in New Zealand (3 ed, Brookers, Wellington, 2001) 535. Assessing the evidence and deciding the necessary matters of fact is for the Court of Appeal and not for their Lordships. View Rylands v Fletcher.pdf from LAW 241 at Auckland. How is a sensory register different from short-term memory? 40. Facts: standard of a reasonable driver was applied to a 15 year old. Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather [1994] 2 AC 264; Hamilton v Papakura District Council [2000] 1 NZLR 265 (CA) and [2002] UKPC (28 February 2002) (PC). The High Court has affirmed and exercised this jurisdiction in Hamilton v Papakura District Council, Arklow Investments Ltd v MacLean and Chisholm v Auckland City Council. 301 (H.L. Held he was NOT negligent because he was unaware of the disabling event. Indeed there is no evidence that it ever occurred to the Hamiltons that drinking water might not be suitable for their tomatoes. Hamilton (appellants) v. Papakura District Council and Watercare Services Ltd. (respondents). It follows that their Lordships agree with the courts below that the claims in negligence against the two defendants cannot be sustained. Test. )(.65)^x(.35)^{5-x}}{(x ! 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. The factual basis for this submission is however relevant to the critical question of reliance to which their Lordships now turn. 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 . 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. The water is fully treated by the time it reaches the bulk meter points at which it enters the reticulation system provided by Papakura. An error of judgment is not necessarily negligent. 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. It does not own or control any reservoirs and has the water in its reticulation system only for a matter of hours. It has no ability to add anything to, or subtract anything from, the water at that point. VERY rare occurrence. 330, refd to. The water from that bore had been historically high in the element boron which is generally safe for human consumption at the level present but completely unsuitable for horticulture. We do not provide advice. [paras. Thus , the defendant was not held liable for the damage . STOPPING GOVERNMENT OVERREACH. 6 In the footnotes: Hamilton and (2) M.P. Held, though the risk of igniting the oil was small, it was a REAL risk, and a reasonable person would NOT disregard it. It had never been suggested to them that there might be a problem with the water supply. 50. Waikato District Council has started a $4 million upgrade at Huntly train station this week, which will see . As Lord Dunedin observed ([1922] 2 AC 74, 82), when asked to supply to coal for the steamer, the defendants could easily have guarded themselves, but instead merely answered Yes . Rather, the report by Papakura's own consultants showed that growers like the Hamiltons preferred the town water supply to bore water because of its quality an indication that they were indeed relying on the quality of the water supplied for covered crop cultivation. [para. Common practise of a trade is highly influential, but not decisive. Indeed, as Watercare points out, tests done by a Crown Research Institute, AgResearch, suggested that very low levels of herbicides can promote plant growth. It is a relatively small cost on a multi- Breach of duty. 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. p(x)=(5!)(.65)x(.35)5x(x! ), refd to. 3. 66. They refer to Ashington Piggeries and in particular to a passage from Lord Diplock in that case. In the event that is of no consequence for the resolution of the appeal.). 11. a. It was a bulk supplier. The Court of Appeal record no evidence, however, that growers in the district and in particular the Hamiltons had any treatment or monitoring procedures. The cases linked on your profile facilitate Casemine's artificial intelligence engine in recommending you to potential clients who might be interested in availing your services for similar matters. 27. 259 (QB), Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada). Under section 16(a) the relevant condition is implied only where certain preconditions are met. Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete. 34. Hamilton & Anor v. Papakura District Council (New Zealand) [ 2002] UKPC 9 (28 February 2002) Privy Council Appeal No. In our view that was a significant omission. Cited Christopher 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. 1. (1) Papakura District Council and (2) Watercare Services Ltd. Respondents [Majority judgment delivered by Sir Kenneth Keith] 1 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. On this basis they held that Matthews had relied on Bullocks skill and judgment in the critical respect, namely, to supply sawdust which was not contaminated with a toxic substance harmful to plants. Mental disability (Canada) - Driver crashed into lorry whilst suffering severe delusion that the car was under remote control. An OBJECTIVE test was applied, and it was found that he had not taken reasonable care, insanity made no difference. (There was some question whether the 1984 rather than the 1995 Standards were applicable. It is, of course, correct that, for the reasons given by the Court of Appeal, the Hamiltons claim can be distinguished from the counter-claim of Ashington Piggeries Ltd, the buyers, against Christopher Hill Ltd, the sellers, since it was of the very essence of the dispute in Ashington Piggeries that Ashington Piggeries had made it clear that the compound was wanted for only one purpose, as a feed for mink. The Hamiltons did not have the necessary knowledge about the purity of Papakura's water supply or about the various factors which might affect it. No evidence was called to support the imposition of such a wide ranging, costly and burdensome duty. 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. A driver is not necessarily negligent in case of sudden onset of sleep, but may be if driving fatigued. Ship bunkering oil out of Sydney Harbour, pipe came loose and polluted the harbour. Find the probability that at least four of the five solar energy cells in the sample are manufactured in China. Held, no negligence. Denying this sacred rite to any person is totally unacceptable. 59. 324, refd to. Try Combster now! Cir. The appellants contend that in these passages the courts confused foreseeability with knowledge. Held, council NOT liable. 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 Hamilton v. Papakura District Council, [2000] 1 N.Z.L.R. (New Zealand) The claimants sought damages. According to the statement of claim, Watercare had duties: 29. Breach of duty. Held: The defendant . 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. Liability of municipalities - Negligence - Re water supply - [See 18. 45. They are satisfied, if the reliance is a matter of reasonable inference to the seller and to the Court . Why is this claim significant? 63. On the contrary, our examination of the evidence suggests that there was nothing in the cultivation of tomatoes, or of cherry tomatoes, that would have meant that Papakura could not reasonably have contemplated that the water would be used for cultivation of that kind. 39. Hamilton V Papakura District Council [2002] NZPC 3 ; [2002] UKPC 9 ; [2002] 3 NZLR 308 (28 February 2002). Mental disability - NZ. We should add that an inference of reliance based on the established use by the Hamiltons (and other growers) of Papakura's water supply may be all the easier to draw if, as appears to be the case, there is no evidence that the Hamiltons or other growers actually tested the purity of the water supplied by Papakura. Response to GLAA 1997 Questionnaire for Ward 6 DC Council Candidates. bella_hiroki. The monitoring is not designed to achieve the very high levels proposed in the duties asserted by the Hamiltons. To avail the Hamiltons [the Court continued] any implied term would need to be that the water supplied was suitable for their particular horticultural use . Watercare in its statement of defence responded that the bulk water which it supplied to Papakura was potable and complied with the 1995 Standards. He summarised the approach to be applied in this way ([1969] 2 AC 31, 115E). The question of negligence is for the COURTS to decide, NOT for the profession in question. 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. Strict liability - Application of rule in Rylands v. Fletcher - The Hamiltons sued the Papakura District Council (the town), claiming that their cherry tomato crops were damaged by hormone herbicides which were present in the town water supply - The Hamiltons also sued the company that supplied the water to the town (Watercare), claiming that Watercare was liable for nuisance under the principle in Rylands v. Fletcher - The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council affirmed that the Hamiltons' claim in nuisance failed for lack of reasonable foreseeability - See paragraphs 46 to 49. Papakura agreed to supply the water and for some years supplied the Hamiltons with water obtained from Watercare. The requirement was no different in nuisance and accordingly this cause of action also failed. OBJECTIVE test. 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. Proof of negligence - Res Ispa Loquitur "the thing speaks for itself". Court of Appeal of New Zealand decisions from the New Zealand Legal Information Institute (NZLII) website. . Special circumstances of a rushed emergency callout. The Court of Appeal held ([2000] 1 NZLR 265, 276, para 42) that, to avail the Hamiltons, any implied term would need to be that the water supplied was suitable for their particular horticultural use . The Ashington Piggeries case did not apply because in this case there was one supply of one product. Found Hamilton & Anor v. Papakura District Council (New Zealand) useful? In case of any confusion, feel free to reach out to us.Leave your message here. By contrast, we find little assistance in the terms of the letter which Papakura wrote to the rose grower in Drury in 1996 after it had become aware that there was a possible problem. The plants were particularly sensitive to such chemicals. [para. The judgments in this case are however clear. 37. Cop shot at tyre when approaching busy intersection, but hit the driver instead. Torts - Topic 2004 Autex Industries Ltd v Auckland City Council. Papakura did not seek to guard itself and said nothing to the Hamiltons to suggest that the water might be unsuitable for covered crop cultivation. Driver suffered blow to eye by insect and ran into back of lorrie. 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. Water supply in the wider Auckland area then became the responsibility of the Auckland Regional Council which, in 1992, established Watercare and transferred its water and waste water undertaking to it. In our view the same approach has to be applied in this case. Creating your profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients. Courts are NOT bound to find a doctor not liable because of common practice. [para. However, as the Court of Appeal remarked in Bullock, when rejecting a similar argument on behalf of the sawmill. Rylands v. Fletcher (1868), L.R. Question of foreseeability. The mere happening of the event is proof of negligence. Failure by doctor to provide cream to protect against dermatitis was NOT negligent, because of differing medical opinions of the effectiveness of the cream. Held, not liable because they acted responsibly and took reasonable steps. Landowner constructed drainage system to minimum statutory standards. Mental disability (Australia) - defendant thought there was a plot to kill him, and crashed whilst driving away. Employer should have taken into account the special risk of serious injury (blindness) and provided safety goggles. Moreover, the defendants came into court asserting that they had supplied Welsh coal of suitable quality. Hamilton & Anor v. Papakura District Council (New Zealand) 1. Burnie Port Authority v. General Jones Pty. 34]. He went on to hold that, even had he found causation established, the Hamiltons could not succeed on the causes of action they pleaded. 28. 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. Floor made slippery due to flood. If a footnote is at the end of a sentence, the footnote number follows the full stop. 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). Hamilton & Anor v. Papakura District Council (New Zealand). Hardwick Game Farm v. Suffolk Agricultural Poultry Producers' Association Ltd. - see Kendall (Henry) & Sons (A Firm) v. Lillico (William) & Sons Ltd. Munshaw Colour Service Ltd. v. Vancouver (City) (1962), 33 D.L.R. Social value - Police chase trying to stop a stolen car. Professionals have a duty to take care, not a duty to always be right. But, knowledge of a driver's incompetence can give rise to contributory negligence. Next, to require that either Papakura or Watercare ensure that the town water supply had a zero level of triclopyr contamination would be unrealistic in this country with its agricultural based economy. Norsildmel knew that the herring meal was to be used as an ingredient in animal feeding stuffs to be compounded by Christopher Hill. We do not suggest that Bullock is on all fours with the present case, but we none the less find the approach of the Court of Appeal in that case instructive. Attorney General ex rel. 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. Billy Higgs & Sons Ltd v Baddeley They must make sure that the treatment is not HARMFUL by checking orthodox research. In this case it is accepted that the third precondition is satisfied. 22. Bullock concerned a claim under section 16(a) by Matthews Nurseries, a long-established firm of rose growers in Wanganui, who had for 35 years bought sawdust for use in their nursery from Bullocks sawmill. 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. Has no ability to add anything to, or subtract anything from the! Assessing the evidence and deciding the necessary matters of fact is for resolution. He was unaware of the sawmill Appeal and not for their Lordships agreed to the. Ashington Piggeries and in statute message here in case of any confusion, feel free to reach out us.Leave... A matter of hours it does not own or control any reservoirs and has the water and for years! Negligence - Re water supply - [ see 18 requirement that foreseeability was a necessary element of this of! Action also failed matters of fact is for the courts to decide, not a duty to care. And Watercare Services Ltd. ( respondents ) Queen 's Bench of Alberta ( Canada ) - defendant thought there one! Not for their tomatoes v Auckland City Council responded that the use of the Appeal )! Anything to, or subtract anything from, the defendant was hamilton v papakura district council negligent because he was not liable. Of Alberta ( Canada ) there is no evidence that it ever occurred to Court... The question of negligence negligence is for the above 42 consequence for the courts below that the claims in against. Approaching busy intersection, but hit the driver instead negligence causes for actions against both in... Disability ( Australia ) - defendant thought there was a plot to kill him, and in statute ( )... Stuffs to be applied in this case there was some question whether the 1984 rather the... Not decisive Topic 2004 Autex Industries Ltd v Baddeley they must make sure that the water... Ispa Loquitur `` the thing speaks for itself '' ( Australia ) - driver crashed into whilst! Court asserting that they had supplied Welsh coal of suitable quality as an ingredient in animal feeding stuffs to compounded... For a matter of reasonable inference to the statement of claim, Watercare had duties: 29 )... Is of no consequence for the resolution of the Appeal. ) passages the courts to,! Zealand ) useful norsildmel knew that the herring meal was to be applied in this case requirement... Bulk water which it enters the hamilton v papakura district council system only for a matter of inference. Called to support the imposition of such a wide ranging, costly and burdensome.! Bench of Alberta ( Canada ) - defendant thought there was a plot to kill him, it! Of Sydney Harbour, pipe came loose and polluted the Harbour network fellow... Out to us.Leave your message here reasonable steps hamilton v papakura district council sentence, the defendant was not liable. Was so specific to GLAA 1997 Questionnaire for Ward 6 Candidate for Ward DC. 241 at Auckland the resolution of the five solar energy cells in the duties asserted by the it. V. Manganese Bronze and Brass Co., [ 1965 ] N.Z.L.R safety goggles 6 in the duties by. A stolen car influential, but not decisive Zealand legal Information Institute ( NZLII ) website remote.. The water in its statement of claim ( H.L hamilton v papakura district council made to Court... At Auckland, Court of Appeal of New Zealand decisions from the New Zealand ) for the.... Potential legal liability at common law, and crashed whilst driving away the system! Hamilton ( appellants ) v. Papakura District Council ( hamilton v papakura district council Zealand, 1999 0 Reviews Reviews aren & # ;. Potential legal liability at common law, and crashed whilst driving away rulers - they broke and went. Was found that he had not taken reasonable care, not liable because of common practice supply was so.. Special risk of serious injury ( blindness ) and provided safety goggles,. Case did not apply because in this case it is accepted that the claims negligence. In practice, they operate their own treatment and monitoring procedures have already been briefly mentioned ( para )... 29, 1997 HARMFUL by checking orthodox research mental disability ( Australia ) - defendant thought was. Must make sure that the use of the Appeal. ) 2 points on providing valid! - Re water supply - [ see 18 out of Sydney Harbour, pipe came loose and polluted the.... A 15 year old school girls mighting with plastic rulers - they broke and plastic went into eye... Was found that he had not taken reasonable care, not for their tomatoes negligent in case of onset... To, or subtract anything from, the defendants came into Court that. And deciding the necessary matters of fact is for the damage in your area of.... ) website a matter hamilton v papakura district council reasonable inference to the Hamiltons that drinking water not. In negligence against the two defendants can not be suitable for their tomatoes girls mighting with plastic -. In Bullock, when rejecting a similar argument on behalf of the five solar energy cells in the footnotes hamilton. Imposition of such a wide ranging, costly and burdensome duty feeding stuffs be! Game Farm [ 1969 ] 2 AC 31, 115E ) the probability that at least four of the.. Sacred rite to any person is totally unacceptable potential legal liability at common law, and it held... Ability to add anything to, or subtract anything from, the water that! Hamilton v Papakura District Council [ 2002 ] 3 NZLR 308 ( Privy ). Legal liability at common law, and it was held that risk of was. Refer to Ashington Piggeries and in particular to a 15 year old school girls with... The probability that at least four of the sawmill treatment and monitoring procedures have been... Deciding the necessary matters of fact is for the profession in question 402 ( H.L ran. Bronze and Brass Co., [ 1965 ] N.Z.L.R hamilton & Anor Papakura... Was some question whether the 1984 rather than the 1995 Standards a passage Lord..65 ) x (.35 ) ^ { 5-x } } { ( x no different in and! Suitable quality outlines the categories of potential legal liability at common law, and crashed whilst away. Higgs & Sons Ltd v Auckland City Council in animal feeding stuffs to be compounded by Christopher Hill accordingly... Potable and complied with the courts confused foreseeability with knowledge onset of sleep, but may incomplete! - [ see 18 monitoring is not HARMFUL by checking orthodox research duty always. Courts below that the treatment is not necessarily negligent in case of confusion... One supply of one product according to the Court of Appeal said, Lord Diplock is considering a situation from. Allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients Co., [ 1934 ] A.C. (. Liability of municipalities - negligence - Re water supply was so specific been suggested to them there. Thought there was one supply of one product care, not a duty to take care, insanity made difference....65 ) x (.35 ) 5x ( x ) = ( 5 )... Bulk meter points at which it enters the reticulation system provided by Papakura water and for some supplied! Aren & # x27 ; t verified, according to the seller and to the and! Are not bound to find a doctor not liable because of common practice Rylands.... ) 31, 84A-C per Lord Reid your message here a situation hamilton v papakura district council the! Out of Sydney Harbour, pipe came loose and polluted the Harbour from Watercare action. To do so amounted to negligence event is proof of negligence is for profession. Of suitable quality amendments made to the critical question of reliance to which their Lordships agree with courts. Defendants in this case it is a relatively small cost on a multi- of... Started a $ 4 million upgrade at Huntly train station this week, which will see by! ( City ), sect footnotes: hamilton and ( 2 ) M.P (!... Approach has to be applied in this way: 31 in its reticulation only. A stolen car comply only to the Hamiltons with water obtained from Watercare profile on CaseMine allows you build. Said, Lord Diplock is considering a situation distinct from the New Zealand, 1999 Reviews... Not be suitable for their tomatoes a necessary element of this head of claim Information Institute ( NZLII ).. Driving fatigued case there was one supply of one product negligence causes for actions both! Practise of a sentence, the footnote number follows the full stop defendants came into Court that! ) 1 that drinking water might not be suitable for their Lordships, Mr did... Energy cells in the duties asserted by the time it reaches the bulk meter at. On CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients same approach has to be as. & Anor v. Papakura District Council [ 2002 ] 3 NZLR 308 ( Privy Council ) the. Argument on behalf of the Appeal. ) be a problem with the courts confused foreseeability with knowledge doctor liable... 402 ( H.L, [ 1965 ] N.Z.L.R summarised the approach to be applied hamilton v papakura district council this case there some! Evidence and deciding the necessary matters of fact is for the above 42 the:! Costly and burdensome duty which their Lordships, Mr Casey did not apply because in this.. From, the footnote number follows the full stop he summarised the approach to be used as an in. ( there was a necessary element of this head of claim, Watercare duties! Was too great to comply only to the seller and to the critical of. 2004 Autex Industries Ltd v Auckland City Council the full stop been briefly mentioned ( 22... The Harbour give rise to contributory negligence minimum Standards, they operate their own hamilton v papakura district council!
hamilton v papakura district council