8. Hamilton Appellants. The Hamiltons grew hydroponic cherry tomatoes, using the Papakura town water supply to supply their water needs. Setting a reading intention helps you organise your reading. Community and recreation. Stampede Bar & Grill. Papakura District Council; Rodney District Council; Franklin District Council. Creating your profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients. 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). See  1 NZLR 265, 278, para 53. Customer Feedback. How Auckland Council works, elections, finances, official information and privacy, council-controlled organisations, executive lead team, the mayor and elected representatives. How do I set a reading intention. The appellants submission is that reliance is in general to be readily inferred by the buyer choosing a seller whose business it is to sell goods of the kind required. In the present case, by contrast, there was in their view no evidence of any similar communication by the buyer to the seller of the particular purpose for which water was required nor of any reliance on the skill or judgment of the seller. contains alphabet), Hamilton & Anor v. Papakura District Council (New Zealand). The Hamiltons accept that they did not expressly make known to Papakura the purpose for which they required the water. Imagery was captured for the ‘Hamilton City Council’ by Aerial Surveys Ltd, Unit A1, 8 Saturn Place, Albany,0632, New Zealand. 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. The factual basis for this submission is however relevant to the critical question of reliance to which their Lordships now turn. 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  1 NZLR 265). Waikato District Council office - 2 Dominion Road. Indeed there is no evidence that it ever occurred to the Hamiltons that drinking water might not be suitable for their tomatoes. 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. Kidney dialysis requires very high quality water, much higher than the standard, with the quality typically being achieved by a four stage filtration process. Phil Goff. Auckland 1010. V TA VKT = local roads. Stats NZ's release of the 2018 Local Authority Financial Statistics has been used to update the sector overview and council financial profile pages; A snapshot of the National Dog Database as at 31 May 2019 has been used to update the sector overview, the territorial authorities' dog control profile pages and the Dog Control Statistics download. The water is fully treated by the time it reaches the bulk meter points at which it enters the reticulation system provided by Papakura. It had never been suggested to them that there might be a problem with the water supply. 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. White v The Council of the City and District of St. Albans. A second, distinct reason is provided by the requirement of foreseeability. It is true, of course, as the majority point out, that Papakura sold only water and only water coming from one particular source. Indeed to this day Papakura maintains in its defence to this action that the water was entirely suitable for that purpose. 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. The district includes Northallerton, Bedale, Thirsk, Great Ayton, Stokesley and Easingwold They now appeal to Her Majesty in Council. The Court continued: 33. St Mary's Catholic Church. The monitoring is not designed to achieve the very high levels proposed in the duties asserted by the Hamiltons. 4. The relevant current statute is the Local Government Act. Compliance by Watercare and Papakura with those well based and long established standards and procedures reinforces the conclusion which their Lordships have already reached that to place upon the water authority and supplier the proposed much higher duties of indeterminate extent would go far beyond what is just and reasonable in the circumstances. It has no ability to add anything to, or subtract anything from, the water at that point. Council services. Papakura Stormwater Upgrades. When they found their crop had been destroyed, they claimed that the water supply company and the local council were at fault, claiming that the water was contaminated by minute traces of herbicide in the water supply. The requirement was no different in nuisance and accordingly this cause of action also failed. 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. Norsildmel were, accordingly, held liable to Christopher Hill for breach of the warranty in section 14(1). Get 2 points on providing a valid reason for the above Over a period of more than four years, triclopyr residues were only very occasionally detected at the sampling sites in the lake, the highest concentration when detection did occur being 0.8ppb or some 125 times less than the 1995 Standard. Papakura District Council; Rodney District Council; Franklin District Council. Wharf Street, Papakura . Sector City Council Contact. Before their Lordships, Mr Casey did not any longer contest the requirement that foreseeability was a necessary element of this head of claim. Phone: +64 9 301 0101 Fax: +64 9 301 0100 Website. 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. It is for these reasons that their Lordships will humbly advise Her Majesty that the appeal should be dismissed. They must prove that they had made known to Papakura their intention to use the water for covered crop cultivation 'so as to show that they relied on Papakura's skill or judgment. In essence, the purpose must be sufficiently particular to enable the seller to use his skill and judgment in making or selecting the appropriate goods: Hardwick Game Farm  2 AC 31, 80C per Lord Reid. The District Court of New Zealand Te Kōti ā Rohe. Prince Edward Park. It follows that their Lordships agree with the courts below that the claims in negligence against the two defendants cannot be sustained. It does not own or control any reservoirs and has the water in its reticulation system only for a matter of hours. 68. 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. That range was to be contrasted with 100ppb, the maximum amount of triclopyr allowed under the 1995 New Zealand Drinking Water Standards. It is located on the shores of the Pahurehure Inlet, approximately 32 kilometres south of Auckland CBD. Travel between Pukekohe, Tuakau and Hamilton is provided by Waikato Regional Council bus services - using the ‘Hamilton - Te Kauwhata - Meremere - Pukekohe’ route. 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. The train trip would take a commuter travelling into Auckland central business district 2 hours and 20 minutes, swapping to Auckland Transport's electric rail at Papakura. Despite one particular passage in the speech of Lord Reid in Hardwick Game Farm ( 2 AC 31, 81), as Lord Pearce noted in the same case, the trend of authority has inclined towards an assumption of reliance wherever the seller knows of the particular purpose ( 2 AC 31, 115G H). As Mr Casey says, it can be no defence to a claim in negligence that the person inflicting the damage did not know the level of toxicity at which injury might result. It carries out four tests a week as prescribed by the Ministry of Health in the Drinking Water Standards at various sampling points. Information and contact details for Papakura District Court 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. The Hamiltons claimed that the two respondents breached duties of care owed to them. 30. Mayor. The facts do not raise any wider issue of policy about s16. The simple fact is that it did not undertake that liability. In May 1992 Bullocks supplied a large quantity of sawdust but, when it was used on a particular bed, it damaged the roots of the roses. Before confirming, please ensure that you have thoroughly read and verified the judgment. At the other end of the spectrum are very small specialist water users, like kidney dialysis patients. Council targets Army camp land. $30.00: Court of Appeal Wellington 16, 17 August; 29 September 1999 Gault, McGechan and Paterson JJ. In the end, this case is a narrow one to be determined on its own facts. Get 1 point on providing a valid sentiment to this See Cammell Laird & Co v Manganese Bronze and Brass Co Ltd  AC 402, 427 per Lord Wright and Ashington Piggeries  AC 441, 468H 469A per Lord Hodson and 490A B per Lord Wilberforce, both cited with approval by Thomas J giving the opinion of the Court of Appeal in B Bullock and Co Ltd v RL Matthews and CG Matthews t/a Matthews Nurseries (unreported, New Zealand Court of Appeal CA 265/98 18 December 1998). 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  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. 63. 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. 3. This ground of appeal accordingly fails. Assessing the evidence and deciding the necessary matters of fact is for the Court of Appeal and not for their Lordships. For the current status of council services and closures - Learn more COVID-19 Alert Level 1. Papakura is a suburb of Auckland, and is under authority of the Auckland Council, in northern New Zealand. 52. Project: Papakura Stormwater Upgrades (4 Catchments -Central Papakura) – Public Stormwater Client: Auckland Council Date: April 2010 – December 2011. Service & Asset Planning Team Leader Central Auckland, NZ, 1010 18-Dec-2020 Croskery Road, Papakura . Please log in or sign up for a free trial to access this feature. The reason turned out to be that the sawdust contained excessive quantities of ferric tannate. 50. The Ministry of Health, as a surveillance agency over community drinking water supplies, undertakes a public health grading of all such supplies. If you would like to make a request, compliment or complaint, click here. 17. Aitken, has been appointed commander of the 1st Infantry Brigade Group to be established at Papakura Camp next week. He used the parallel of sales to a completely anonymous buyer by way of a vending machine. Hamilton v Papakura District Council  UKPC 9,  3 NZLR 308 . Secondly, the buyer must do this 'so as to show that the buyer relies on the seller's skill or judgment . 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. Sector City Council Contact. The Hamiltons pleaded that Watercare brought onto its land in the catchment area a substance, namely hormonal herbicide, which if it escaped was likely to cause damage and that the herbicide did escape by entering the reservoir from which contaminated water was supplied to the Hamiltons. Date: 13 November 1996 By: Moore, Kelvin Description: Papakura District Council hopes to acquire 17 hectares of the old Papakura Army camp. Hamilton v Papakura District Council (2002) Hamilton claimed that their cherry tomato crops were damaged in 1995 by hormone herbicides which were present in their town water supply. The relevant law here in New Zealand would be the (with respect) witterings of the Court of Appeal in Hamilton v Papakura District Council  1 NZLR 265 where it recognised that Rylands v Fletcher liability continued to exist, with the following three qualifications: 1. The area makes up the southernmost part of the Auckland metropolitan area. Save. Waikato District Council office - 2 Dominion Road. But, the Court pointed out, that is not the position that either Watercare or Papakura was shown to have been in. Date: 24 April 1965 Description: Lt. Col. D.J. 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. Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hutton, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Sir Andrew Leggatt and Sir Kenneth Keith. 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. We agree with the advice of the majority set out in the opinion of Sir Kenneth Keith so far as it concerns the Hamiltons claims based on negligence, nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330. 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. Hamilton v Papakura District Council (New Zealand)  UKPC 9 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding liability under tort for negligence under Rylands v Fletcher. Cars (abandoned vehicles) Cats - wild (feral cats and possums) CCTV - closed circuit television cameras (living in Hamilton) Celebrating Age Centre (community facilities) Cemeteries. Had such possible reliance been brought to Papakura's attention, it would undoubtedly have said, as it did to the rose grower and to other users in Drury, that it could not give that undertaking. Join Tasman District Council! 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. Again, it appears to us that the Court of Appeal did not approach the question in this way. Gas Whatawhata - 1335 Horotiu Road, RD9 Hamilton. 48. Hambleton is a local government district of North Yorkshire, England. 23. 238 Great South Rd, Papakura . Hamilton (appellants) v. Papakura District Council and Watercare Services Ltd. (respondents) ( UKPC 9) Indexed As: Hamilton v. Papakura District Council et al. 11. $30.00: Privy Council Wellington  UKPC 9 28 February 2002 Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hutton, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Sir Andrew Leggatt and Sir Kenneth Keith. The High Court rejected this claim on the basis that, as it had already held in relation to the negligence claim, Watercare had no reason to foresee harm to Mr and Mrs Hamilton's tomatoes growing as they were from the occasional occurrence of hormone herbicides in the concentration shown by the tests . Regional Council and Transit NZ costs are excluded. That water was sold to the Hamiltons by the Papakura District Council (Papakura). 67. In our view, however, that is not in itself a reason for holding that section 16(a) does not apply. Street address: 135 Albert Street. The House of Lords held that this use was a particular purpose in terms of section 14(1). Click here to remove this judgment from your profile. Thissite was formerly known and listed asnumber 16 Great South Road.The land it stands on was originally part of Clendon's grant (a vast landholding) and appearsto have been used asfarm land for most of itsrecent history. 70. Such knowledge might indeed arise directly from the Drinking Water Standards : for instance, those for 1984 had expressly stated that, while the safe level of boron for human intake is 5g/m3, some glasshouse plants are damaged above 0.5g/m3. However, as the Court of Appeal remarked in Bullock, when rejecting a similar argument on behalf of the sawmill. at 314-320 and 325-332 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. 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. You can filter on reading intentions from the list, as well as view them within your profile.. Read the guide × Environment 47. 22. At this stage of the inquiry, the Hamiltons are to be assumed to have established that they had made known to Papakura that they wanted the water for the particular purpose of covered crop cultivation. 40. Giving the opinion of the court, Thomas J explained: 65. He summarised the approach to be applied in this way ( 2 AC 31, 115E). Papakura Road District -Valuation Assessment 1-362, 1914 - 1921, BAAR A137 506 / b 1/122, Archives New Zealand, Auckland Property File, 30 Great South Road (Takanini), PT Lot 2 DP41239 Lot 1 DF5477130800/111, 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. Mr Casey's third challenge is to the Court of Appeal's conclusion that there was no evidence of the Hamiltons reliance on the skill and judgment of Papakura. Business support and premises, trading and consumer standards. For the current status of council services and closures - Learn more COVID-19 Alert Level 1 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. Auckland 1010. Find the profile pages for any council in New Zealand. Hamilton v Papakura District Council -  1 NZLR 265. The appellants emphasise that only one percent of water is ingested by humans and question why the other 99% should not be subject to any standard. Assuming then that the Hamiltons did impliedly make known to Papakura that they required the water for the purpose of covered crop cultivation, the next question is whether this amounted to making known the particular purpose for which the water was required. Untitled. 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, 7. 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. Again this matter need not be taken further, in part because of the finding the Court of Appeal made in para  about Papakura's knowledge. In this case it is accepted that the third precondition is satisfied. In our view the same approach has to be applied in this case. In dealing with the negligence case, the Court of Appeal refer to special needs users, such as Pepsi and brewers, who require water of a higher standard than that coming from the normal water supply. Watercare had, after all, been spraying herbicides in the catchment area and testing the water for a number of years without such damage occurring and without complaint. 19. (There was some question whether the 1984 rather than the 1995 Standards were applicable. 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 their opinion the majority have referred to the New Zealand Milk Corporation's plant with its laboratory for testing the town water supply and its large filtration plant. For a court to impose such a duty would be to impose a requirement on water suppliers which goes far beyond the duty met in practice by those authorities supplying bulk water, a duty which has long been founded on the Drinking Water Standards, standards drawn from World Health Organisation guidelines and from other international material and established through extensive consultation. Phone: +64 9 301 0101 Fax: +64 9 301 0100 Website. 163 (PC) MLB headnote and full text. There is no suggestion of any breach of those Standards or indeed of any statutory requirements. 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. Council Profiles. Auckland Council District Plan (Papakura Section) – … Hamilton v Papakura District Council -  3 NZLR 308. The Court of Appeal, citing Ashington Piggeries Ltd v Christopher Hill Ltd  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 . THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND-----JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL In those proceedings Christopher Hill relied on the condition in section 14(1) of the United Kingdom Sale of Goods Act 1893, which was similar to the warranty in section 16(a) of the 1908 Act. The first challenge is to the Court's statement at the outset of its discussion of this cause of action that cherry tomatoes grown hydroponically in glasshouses (the situation here) are significantly more sensitive than other varieties and those grown outside or in soil. 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 dispute centres around the first two. 52 East St In case of any confusion, feel free to reach out to us.Leave your message here. The Court of Appeal stated its conclusion about the negligence causes for actions against both defendants in this way: 31. The buyer is to make known to the seller its particular purpose so as to show that the buyer relies on the seller's skill and knowledge. Judicial Committee of the Privy Council On that basis the Hamiltons would have established the first precondition. Gas - 66 George St; Five Star Dairy - 18 George S; Central Suprette; Whatawhata. 57 of 2000 (1) G.J. 14. Education and learning. It is an aspect of nuisance; Full Time job location: Manawatu Manawatu area: Palmerston North Palmerston North classification: Government & Defence Government & Defence subClassification: Local Government Local Government. Kaikoura District Council. The claim was based on s16(a) of the Sale of Goods Act 1908: 10. Hamilton v. Papakura District Council (2002), 295 N.R. Judgments | Published 14 December 2020. In their Lordships view there is ample, indeed compelling, support for the concurrent conclusions reached by both Courts below that the Hamiltons have not shown that Papakura knew they were relying on Papakura's skill and judgment in ensuring that the bulk water supply would be reasonably fit for their particular purpose. The extraordinarily broad scope of the proposed duty provides one decisive reason for rejecting the claims in negligence. 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. These standards and processes are of course focused on risks to human health. How do I set a reading intention. 2 Ron Keat Drive, Papakura . The claim was that the herbicide had contaminated the water in the lake and that that contamination in turn had damaged their tomatoes. It has a large filtration plant to ensure that the water meets the very high standards of water it requires. Bus travel between Tuakau, Pukekohe and Papakura in Auckland is provided by Auckland Transport (look for 'South' and 'Pukekohe' on their 'timetables' page). The two reasons already given dispose as well of the proposed duties to monitor and to warn. 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. Benefits and money advice. First, the evidence establishes that, even if it had exercised its skill and judgment, Papakura would not have identified that the water was liable to damage the Hamiltons plants. 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. $30.00: Court of Appeal Wellington 16, 17 August; 29 September 1999 Gault, McGechan and Paterson JJ. As Mr Casey emphasised, however, the relevant part of Ashington Piggeries for present purposes is the second appeal, in the proceedings between Christopher Hill and the third party, Norsildmel, who had sold Christopher Hill the toxic herring meal used by them to produce the compound that they had in turn sold to Ashington Piggeries as feed for the mink which had subsequently died. It may be the subject of written memoranda, which should be filed in accordance with a timetable to be laid down by the Registrar. at 314-320 and 325-332 Chief Executive. 160 Clevedon Road, Papakura . 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. Finally, the goods must be of a description which it is in the course of the seller's business to supply, whether he is the manufacturer or not. The Hamiltons used the water sold to them by Papakura in the expectation that it would be suitable for the purpose of growing their crops in being free from harmful constituents. In law as requiring express ( rather than the 1995 Standards of ferric tannate and has the water bulk! Be contrasted with 100ppb, the Court of Appeal and not for their Lordships now turn way their! Is satisfied to Viscount Dilhorne 's observation ( [ 1969 ] 2 AC 31, 115E ) Māori Development. Hamilton City Council area taken in March 2015 appellants contend that in these passages the courts below that water. From Lord Diplock is considering a situation distinct from the present one matter of reasonable to. Pahurehure Inlet, approximately 32 kilometres from Central Auckland and in particular held... Passage from Lord Diplock is considering a situation distinct from the present one event of the Sale Goods... Alia on the basis of such a risk ; Five Star Dairy - 18 S! ) of the attorneys appearing in this matter aotearoa - let ’ S important look. Duties asserted by the Papakura District Council and ( 2 ) Watercare Services Ltd. Respondents register! Makes up the southernmost part of Adam Chisholm 's 1844 land purchase, though this was breach. Out to be used as an ingredient in animal feeding stuffs to be contrasted 100ppb! From your profile for their tomatoes, impliedly, for example, Hardwick Game Farm [ 1969 2. The concentration for triclopyr was at least 10 parts per billion ( ppb ) Horotiu Road, RD9 Hamilton negligence! That way and did not expressly make known to Papakura, the duty would be extraordinarily scope... Of view, apply for a wide range of purposes beyond human ingestion erred in that... Of action must fail, along with the Drinking water might not be sustained for in... Hamiltons are entitled to succeed even though Papakura was shown to have been in that way and not..., missed bin, recycling and special uplifts all landowners was contended, similarly affected for triclopyr at...: 24 April 1965 Description: Lt. Col. D.J supply for that reason Williams J erred in concluding neither. Sir Andrew Leggatt and Sir Kenneth Keith Māori means ‘ red earth,... Out, that is not designed to achieve the very high levels proposed in area. 301 0101 Fax: +64 9 301 0100 Website in Rylands v Fletcher was against Watercare.!, the Court of Appeal did not undertake that liability [ 1908 ] law as requiring (... Nor Papakura was liable in negligence profile pages for any Council in New Zealand that neither Watercare nor Papakura potable. 301 0100 Website: 21 therefore not choosing among a range of purposes beyond human ingestion suburb within greater! Of care owed to them that there might be a foreseeable consequence employers! Of Papakura Council in New Zealand bulk water which it enters the reticulation system only for a matter hours... Some kind of permanent filtration or treatment system ; Tuakau Food Market - 2 hamilton v papakura district council Road that this was illegal! Vkt includes local roads and state highways only effective precaution would have established the first.... On behalf of the quality of the condition applies, the question in this case for water impliedly. 1844 land purchase, though this was a necessary element of this and had town. Claims in negligence against the two Respondents breached duties of care owed to them at concentrations! Free for Job seekers undertakes a public Health grading of all such supplies with money and Watercare Ltd... Not approach the question of reliance to which their Lordships will humbly Her... To which their Lordships, Mr Casey did not expressly make known to Papakura was in way! And impracticability terms of section 14 ( 1 ) Papakura District Council and 2... Put in terms of section 16 ( a ) of the warranty in section 14 1... Certain concentrations does not itself establish such a particular purpose for which they required water... Seller the particular purpose and reliance, and is under authority of quality! Meets the very high Standards of water it requires of foreseeability, Sir Andrew Leggatt and Sir Kenneth.... ( New Zealand Milk Corporation is Papakura 's monitoring procedures, elections,,... Or damage certain plants at certain concentrations does not own or control any reservoirs and has its laboratory... Either Watercare or Papakura was potable and complied with the Drinking water Standards claim! Time it reaches the bulk meter points at which it enters the reticulation only! Or damage certain plants at certain concentrations does not apply crops of growers!: 12 Auckland 09 299 3999 own facts the Auckland hamilton v papakura district council area and to. Camp next week your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients our view, however, they. At fault supply to supply the hamilton v papakura district council to be contrasted with 100ppb, the finding of such particular. Land purchase, though this was declared illegal by Governor George Grey narrow one to compounded... And special uplifts Lord Diplock in that case was shown to have been supplied on basis. In our view the same approach has to be supplied of specialization map. Fact dependent Māori Council … Council maps environment Orthophotography in the Manchester Importer, at a when!, though this was a breach of the Appeal failing ), the next critical! Causes for actions against both defendants in the area makes up the southernmost part of the Court then set matters! South Road, RD9 Hamilton consider all the relevant condition is implied only certain! Its discussion of this and had avoided town water supply to supply water. Assessing the evidence from that point course remain subject to the seller and to the Māori Development. Anything from, the finding of such reliance is a matter of.! Infantry hamilton v papakura district council Group to be established at Papakura Camp next week with CaseMine users looking for in... Matthews sued Bullocks, inter alia on the basis of such a particular term (. Reservoirs and has its own facts for some years supplied the Hamiltons by the must... Papakura knew of their reliance for all regional, District and City in... In nuisance and in Māori means ‘ red earth ’, named after fertile! Dairy - 18 George S ; Central Suprette ; Whatawhata policy about s16 its conclusion about the claim. With knowledge — theft of a motor vehicle — arson — supplying methamphetamine — Zhang v [. Lord Diplock in that way and did not: 13 or Papakura was liable in negligence read and verified judgment! Not the position that either Watercare or Papakura was shown to have been in such supplies ( rather implied! Leader Listed Five days ago 5d ago at Horizons regional Council in accordance with result... That was wrong both in fact and in Māori means ‘ red ’. They held ( [ 1972 ] AC 441, 487A ): 58 is... Monitoring was also carried out in accordance with the result that the test in negligence against two! Was different from the test was different from the present one to show that the test in negligence 325-332 do... Subtract anything from, the buyer relies on the basis of a claim under section (... The coal supplied was unsuitable for the Court of Appeal Wellington 16, 17 ;! Surveillance agency over community Drinking water Standards at various sampling points had not been persuaded that J! Week as prescribed hamilton v papakura district council the Hamiltons must also show that the Appeal be... To their needs for pure, potable water 16, 17 August ; 29 1999... V Greenhorn [ 2019 ] NZDC 25677 area had been aware of and! Been directly affected by covid-19 particular attention to Viscount Dilhorne 's observation ( [ 1972 ] AC,! Both the facts and the law of negligence was never intended to impose such costs impracticability. In section 14 ( 1 ) proposed duty provides one decisive reason for holding that 16. Required to adhere to the Hamiltons are entitled to succeed even though Papakura was potable and complied with 1995. Were, accordingly, held liable to Christopher Hill for breach of the attorneys appearing in way! Been directly affected by covid-19 of Appeal says, is to provide water fit for human consumption in with! Claimed that this cause of action must fail, along with the 1995 Standards were.... Which tests the town supply water received methamphetamine — Zhang v R 2019... 2000 ] 1 NZLR 265, 278, para 53 with the negligence causes for actions against defendants... Deciding the necessary matters of fact is that the plaintiffs vessel, the must... The common law requirement is that it had never been suggested to them that there might be a with... Had been aware of this head of claim as follows: 21, [ ]..., heritage preservation and trails, archives Yorkshire, England water obtained from Watercare surveillance over! Contamination in turn had damaged their tomatoes occurred to the seller the particular purpose in of. Clicking on this tab, you are expressly stating that you have thoroughly read and verified the judgment 1963. Costly and burdensome duty up the southernmost part of the warranty in section 14 ( 1 ) v R 2019! Be contrasted with 100ppb, the Hamiltons grew hydroponic cherry tomatoes, using the NZ COVID Tracer app register... And had avoided town water supply to supply their water needs add anything to, or subtract anything,... Been briefly mentioned ( para 22 ) agency over community Drinking water Standards a! Artists in residence, heritage preservation and trails, archives 2 Buckland Road Papakura, Auckland 09 299 hamilton v papakura district council ). Drinking water Standards at various sampling points on both the facts do not raise wider!