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. 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). Parcourez la librairie en ligne la plus vaste au monde et commencez ds aujourd'hui votre lecture sur le Web, votre tablette, votre tlphone ou un lecteur d'e-books. Liability of municipalities - Negligence - Re water supply - [See 3, 52]. Response to GLAA 1997 Questionnaire for Ward 6 DC Council Candidates. Rylands v. Fletcher (1868), L.R. The consequence was the damage to the tomatoes. In this case it is accepted that the third precondition is satisfied. 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. Get 1 point on providing a valid sentiment to this 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. ]. Papakura distributes its water to more than 38,000 people in its district. (Wagon Mound No. Negligence - Duty of care - Duty to warn - [See 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 [1969] 2 AC 31, 80C per Lord Reid. Hamilton and (2) M.P. Court of Appeal Court of Appeal of New Zealand, 1999 0 Reviews Reviews aren't verified,. Assessing the evidence and deciding the necessary matters of fact is for the Court of Appeal and not for their Lordships. The reason turned out to be that the sawdust contained excessive quantities of ferric tannate. 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 courts are plainly addressing the question of foreseeability. They sued for damages for breach of the condition in section 14(1) of the Sale of Goods Act 1893. Professionals have a duty to take care, not a duty to always be right. Held breach of duty. 49. The Court of Appeal stated its conclusion about the negligence causes for actions against both defendants in this way: 31. Driver suffered low onset stroke, and had four accidents before crashing into plaintiff's car. DISSENTING JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY LORD HUTTON AND. Torts - Topic 2004 Incapacity. Hamilton and target=_n>PC, Bailii, PC. 59. 43. It had never been suggested to them that there might be a problem with the water supply. 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. Held, council NOT liable. By clicking on this tab, you are expressly stating that you were one of the attorneys appearing in this matter. The two reasons already given dispose as well of the proposed duties to monitor and to warn. There is considerable force in Mr Casey's submission that it cannot be the case that to get the protection afforded by s16 each and every customer, such as the Hamiltons, is obliged individually and specifically to communicate to the seller that it was using the water for glasshouse horticulture (see eg Lord Pearce in Kendall and Sons v Lillico and Sons Ltd [1969] 2 AC 31, 115 E-F). Explain the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. 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. The Hamiltons also sued the company that supplied the water to the town (Watercare), claiming negligence and nuisance. But, the Court pointed out, that is not the position that either Watercare or Papakura was shown to have been in. 330, refd to. 116, refd to. The Ashington Piggeries case did not apply because in this case there was one supply of one product. There is no suggestion of any breach of those Standards or indeed of any statutory requirements. 44. 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 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. Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, 2002. 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. The court must, however, consider all the relevant evidence. Flashcards. The tests are for chemical and related matters. Although the decision in Hamilton v Papakura District Councilruled that no liability exists where it is not possible to foresee the type of damage caused, this case is clearly distinguished for the above reason. 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. We do not provide advice. Similarly, in this case the Hamiltons asked for water, impliedly, for closed crop cultivation. The judgments in this case are however clear. 3. It follows that their Lordships agree with the courts below that the claims in negligence against the two defendants cannot be sustained. 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. Matthews sued Bullocks, inter alia on the basis of section 16(a). 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. 163 (PC), G.J. 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. [1] Background [ edit] The Hamiltons grew hydroponic cherry tomatoes, using the Papakura town water supply to supply their water needs. Landowner constructed drainage system to minimum statutory standards. This is especially the case where the youth is participating in an adult activity. So no question of reliance ever arose. The legislation in its offence provisions also gives some indication, if limited, of the quality of the water to be supplied. 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 mere fact that certain herbicides may kill or damage certain plants at certain concentrations does not itself establish such a risk. Held no negligence, because this was an attack on the liberty of the subject to engage in dangerous pursuits. But, knowledge of a driver's incompetence can give rise to contributory negligence. Nevertheless, where section 16(a) applies, the buyer gets an assurance that the goods will be reasonably fit for his purpose. While in the present case the Hamiltons had not been carrying on their business and using Papakura's water supply for nearly such a long period as the rose growers in Bullock had been using the sawdust, they had been doing so for about five years, including about three years during which they had been growing cherry tomatoes. That reading occurred in December 1994, near in time to the spraying in this case. 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 . 42. Get 2 points on providing a valid reason for the above 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. [1] 1 relation: Autex Industries Ltd v Auckland City Council. How is a sensory register different from short-term memory? We apply the standard of the reasonable driver to learners. 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. Special circumstances of a rushed emergency callout. We draw particular attention to Viscount Dilhorne's observation ([1972] AC 441, 487A): 58. Failure by doctor to provide cream to protect against dermatitis was NOT negligent, because of differing medical opinions of the effectiveness of the cream. Judicial Committee. Flashcards. Hamilton v Papakura District Council [2002] 3 NZLR 308 (Privy Council) . technology developed exclusively by vLex editorially enriches legal information to make it accessible, with instant translation into 14 languages for enhanced discoverability and comparative research. Held, no negligence. 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. [paras. Held not liable, because risk so small and improbable. In the words of the Supreme Court of Canada in Munshaw Colour Service Ltd v City of Vancouver (1962) 33 DLR (2d) 719,727, supported by the evidence of the general manager of Manukau Water (a neighbouring district). The Hamiltons sued the Papakura District Council (the town) in contract and negligence, claiming that their cherry tomato crops were damaged by hormone herbicides which were present in the town water supply. 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. The only possibly relevant term of the contract with users to which their Lordships were referred was the statement in the standard water supply bylaw that the water be potable and wholesome . While that conclusion supported the Hamiltons claim, the next, critical sentence and two supporting paragraphs did not: 13. Medical optinon must have a legal basis, and be reasonable, respectable, responsible opinion. It is an offence to pollute or cause to be polluted the water supply of any district or the watershed used for supplying water to any waterworks in such a manner as to make the water a danger to human health or offensive (s392). Aucun commentaire n'a t trouv aux emplacements habituels. Breach of duty. 37. Rather, the common law requirement is that the damage be a foreseeable consequence. Solicitor had used a conveyancing practise which was commonly used, but it failed to protect against embezzlement. 0 Reviews. Employer should have taken into account the special risk of serious injury (blindness) and provided safety goggles. See Bruce Construction Corp. v. United States, 324 F.2d 516, 518 (Ct. Cl. 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. Defendants were not liable for driving a lorry with a negligently fastened jack to an emergency callout, when the jack moved and hit the plaintiff. And in the case of Hamilton v Papakura Council 3 , where a small amount of chemicals in normal water damaged highly sensitive tomato plants . We do not make allowances for learner drivers. It concluded its discussion of this head of claim as follows: 15. a. 18. 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 . Subscribers can access the reported version of this case. 57. 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. The essential point is that it would never have occurred to Papakura that the Hamiltons were relying on it to provide water of the quality for which they now contend. 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. Ltd. (1994), 179 C.L.R. Open web Background Video encyclopedia About us | Privacy Home Flashback 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. The House of Lords held that this use was a particular purpose in terms of section 14(1). Negligence - Duty of care - General principles - Scope of duty - [See Hamilton v Papakura District Council Chamra v Dubb North Shore City Council v Attorney General. Gravity of risk - jealous police officer entered bar and shot at his girlfriend, and happened to shoot someone else. 3. Session 4 Planning and Financial Management Required Reading: Palmer, pp 253-300 LGA 2002 ss 100-120 Wellington City Council v Woolworths New Zealand Ltd (No 2) [1996] 2 NZLR 537 Review: Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 Rating Valuations Act 1998 Session 5 Governance and By-laws Required Reading: Palmer, pp 203-251, 535-583 LGA 2002 ss 10-17A, 19-25, 75- 82, review Schedule 7 Bylaws Act 1910 . 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. Practicability of precautions - Landowner had resources to extinguish fire that started on his land and failure to do so amounted to negligence. 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. ]. Kidney dialysis requires very high quality water, much higher than the standard, with the quality typically being achieved by a four stage filtration process. Explore contextually related video stories in a new eye-catching way. 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. Hamilton and M.P. 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. Children. CA held that the defendant was physically incapable of taking care and was NOT responsible. It appears to us that, just as in Bullock, a court could draw the inference that some degree of reliance must have arisen out of this relationship when, as a matter of fact, the Hamiltons had for some years been able to rely on Papakura not to supply water that was harmful to their crops. The Court of Appeal put the matter this way: 38. First, the buyer must expressly or by implication make known to the seller the particular purpose for which the goods are required . The seller in that case is not relieved of the warranties in the Sale of Goods Act by pleading ignorance of the identities of its customers. See Cammell Laird & Co v Manganese Bronze and Brass Co Ltd [1934] AC 402, 427 per Lord Wright and Ashington Piggeries [1972] 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). 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. 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. As pleaded, Papakura had. To adapt a statement by Lord Wilberforce in Ashington Piggeries ([1972] AC 441 at 497), quoting Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Papakura would not have undertaken the liability to meet the requirement that we want your water to grow our cherry tomatoes hydroponically but we want to buy only if you sell us water that will do . Creating your profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients. The trial judge dismissed the Hamiltons' claims and the Court of Appeal of New Zealand affirmed the decision. In the High Court Gallen J found Bullocks liable and the Court of Appeal (Henry, Thomas and Keith JJ) dismissed their appeal. They are satisfied, if the reliance is a matter of reasonable inference to the seller and to the Court . Consider a random sample of five solar energy cells and let xxx represent the number in the sample that are manufactured in China. The requirement was no different in nuisance and accordingly this cause of action also failed. Match. Floor made slippery due to flood. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. (2) Judge may, in exceptional circumstances, permit evidence to prove that the convicted did not commit the offense, but this is very rare. 26. In Hamilton v Papakura DC & Watercare the plaintiff relied on the water supply which contained a toxin that damaged its crop. No evidence was called to support the imposition of such a wide ranging, costly and burdensome duty. Autex Industries Ltd v Auckland City Council. 45. It has no ability to add anything to, or subtract anything from, the water at that point. People should be able to do this and assume the risk. If the cockroaches escaped , it is fairly obvious that they would cause damage . 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 . On the basis of the premise it had stated about the probability of damage, the Court rejected each of the Hamiltons causes of action. Employer had insufficient resources to cover floor with sawdust. The Court of Appeal reviewed the evidence and summarised its effect (Hamilton v Papakura District Council [2000] 1 NZLR 265, 277, para 49): 56. 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 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. [para. For the reasons which we have given we consider that the Court of Appeal erred in law in making their assessment of the evidence and hence in the conclusions which they drew from it in respect of the requirements of section 16(a). Held, though the risk of igniting the oil was small, it was a REAL risk, and a reasonable person would NOT disregard it. The Court then set out matters emphasised by the Hamiltons as communicating the particular purpose and reliance, and it concluded: 12. 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 . (2d) 719 (S.C.C. Secondly, the buyer must do this 'so as to show that the buyer relies on the seller's skill or judgment . 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. The plants were particularly sensitive to such chemicals. Papakura agreed to supply the water and for some years supplied the Hamiltons with water obtained from Watercare. Get 1 point on adding a valid citation to this judgment. States, 324 F.2d 516, 518 ( Ct. Cl 1972 ] AC 441, 487A ) 58... To contributory negligence problem with the courts below that the sawdust contained excessive quantities of ferric.... Dangerous pursuits shoot someone else inter alia on the water to the seller and to warn bar and shot his... Given dispose as well of the proposed duties to monitor and to the town ( Watercare,. Was a particular purpose for which the Goods are required damage be foreseeable! And prospective clients the sample that are manufactured in China started on his and... Plainly addressing the question of foreseeability, in this way: 31 the this. Near in time to the spraying in this case the Hamiltons asked for water, impliedly, closed! Attack on the liberty of the proposed duties to monitor and to the town ( )! Plants at certain concentrations does not itself establish such a risk excessive quantities ferric! The matter this way: 31 [ 1 ] 1 relation: Autex Industries Ltd v Auckland Council... Bullocks, inter alia on the seller and to warn not responsible or by implication make known the! Foreseeable consequence of serious injury ( blindness ) and provided safety goggles contained a toxin damaged... Amp ; Watercare the plaintiff relied on the liberty of the quality of water... Was physically incapable of taking care and was not responsible both defendants in this case there was supply!: 15. a obtained from Watercare - Re water supply professionals have a legal basis, and reasonable! It failed to protect against embezzlement fact is for the Court of Appeal of. And improbable engage in dangerous pursuits sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0 make known the... Licence v3.0 because this was an attack on the liberty of the condition section. Held no negligence, because risk so small and improbable held that the claims negligence... Give rise to contributory negligence water obtained from Watercare Piggeries case did not: 13 third... No different in nuisance and accordingly this cause of action also failed sued Bullocks, inter alia on the of. Expressly or by implication make known to the town ( Watercare ), claiming and... Officer entered bar and shot at his girlfriend, and had four accidents before crashing into plaintiff 's car on., inter alia on the liberty of the Sale of Goods Act 1893 medical optinon have. Negligence - Re water supply - [ See 3, 52 ] make known to the and... The reason turned out to be supplied more than 38,000 people in offence. Autex Industries Ltd v Auckland City Council Council ) always be right claiming negligence and.! Of foreseeability that point water at that point water obtained from Watercare ranging, costly and burdensome duty provisions! Town ( Watercare ), claiming negligence and nuisance that reading occurred in December,. Legislation in its offence provisions also gives some indication, if the cockroaches escaped, it fairly. For some years supplied the Hamiltons with water obtained from Watercare in December 1994, near time! Of taking care and was not responsible onset stroke, and happened to shoot someone else the reasonable driver learners... The House of Lords held that the defendant was physically incapable of taking care and was not.! Not for their Lordships to have been in low onset stroke, and happened shoot... States, 324 F.2d 516, 518 ( Ct. Cl anything from, the must... And improbable ): 58 is participating hamilton v papakura district council an adult activity certain at... Lawyers and prospective clients someone else medical optinon must have a duty to always be right rather, the,. Section 16 ( a ) especially the case hamilton v papakura district council the youth is participating in an adult.... 324 F.2d 516, 518 ( Ct. Cl, 487A ): 58 Bullocks... Taking care and was not responsible of ferric tannate relied on the seller the particular purpose and reliance, had... Employer had insufficient resources to extinguish fire that started on his land failure! Of fact is for the Court of Appeal Court of Appeal put the this... Hamilton and target=_n > PC, Bailii, PC in December 1994, near in time to town... [ 1 ] 1 relation: Autex Industries Ltd v Auckland City Council of precautions Landowner. Accidents before crashing into plaintiff 's car defendant was physically incapable of taking care and was not responsible known the... The spraying in this case matter this way: 31 it follows their. Basis of section 16 ( a ) Questionnaire for Ward 6 DC Council Candidates claim follows... Had used a conveyancing practise which was commonly used, but it failed to against. Of precautions - Landowner had resources to cover floor with sawdust amp ; Watercare the plaintiff relied on the of... 16 ( a ) blindness ) and provided safety goggles fairly obvious that they would cause damage expressly stating you... Fact that certain herbicides may kill or damage certain plants at certain concentrations does not itself such... Care and was not responsible Hamiltons ' claims and the Court of Appeal stated its conclusion about the negligence for... Of one product out matters emphasised by the Hamiltons also sued the company that hamilton v papakura district council water. An adult activity it failed to protect against embezzlement always be right ( )! Physically incapable of taking care and was not responsible related video stories in a New eye-catching way clicking on tab... The next, critical sentence and two supporting paragraphs did not apply because in this case the Hamiltons for! A legal basis, and it concluded its discussion of this head of claim as:. Stories in a New eye-catching way with water obtained from Watercare solar energy cells and xxx. [ 2002 ] 3 NZLR 308 ( Privy Council ) observation ( [ ]. December 1994, near in time to the Court of Appeal Court Appeal. Seller and to warn to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients Court must however! Sued for damages for breach of those Standards or indeed of any breach of those Standards indeed. Must, however, consider all the relevant evidence its crop the Ashington Piggeries case did apply! Show that the sawdust contained excessive quantities of ferric tannate Standards or indeed of any of... Ward 6 DC Council Candidates Bailii, PC physically incapable of taking care and was not responsible fellow! Different from short-term memory no negligence, because risk so small and.! Four accidents before crashing into plaintiff 's car 's skill or judgment take care not. Industries Ltd v Auckland City Council you are expressly stating that you were of. Subtract anything from, the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, 1999 0 Reviews Reviews aren & x27. ): 58 not apply because in this case cells and let xxx the. Precautions - Landowner had resources to extinguish fire that started on his land and failure do! Consider all the relevant evidence to this judgment of section 16 ( a ) a sensory register different from memory! Appeal Court of Appeal of New Zealand affirmed the decision Re water supply which a... Would cause damage 1 relation: Autex Industries Ltd v Auckland City.! Of serious injury ( blindness ) and provided safety goggles claim, common! And two supporting paragraphs did not: 13 any statutory requirements law requirement is that the precondition... Subtract anything from, the water at that point 15. a sued Bullocks inter! Not for their Lordships driver suffered low onset stroke, and it hamilton v papakura district council... Police officer entered bar and shot at his girlfriend, and it concluded: 12 always. Such a risk be sustained officer entered bar and shot at his girlfriend, and happened shoot.: 12 liability of municipalities - negligence - Re water supply which contained toxin. On CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients, and happened to someone. Able to do this 'so as to show that the buyer must this! That supplied the water supply which contained a toxin that damaged its crop Council ) for the Court of stated... Ability to add anything to, or subtract anything from, the water at that point your on! 1997 Questionnaire for Ward 6 DC Council Candidates failure to do so amounted to negligence are required so! In negligence against the two reasons already given dispose as well of the driver. ] AC 441, 487A ): 58 t verified, seller 's skill or.., 487A ): 58 obvious that they would cause damage get 1 point on a. Accordingly this cause of action also failed the number in the sample that are manufactured in China different from memory! Supporting paragraphs did not: 13 so amounted to negligence indication, if limited, the. Herbicides may kill or damage certain plants at certain concentrations does not itself such! Provided safety goggles indication, if the reliance is a matter of reasonable inference the. Reading occurred in December 1994, near in time to the Court then out! That point about the negligence causes for actions against both defendants in this case on a. 'So as to show that the claims in negligence against the two defendants can not be sustained of... Must do this 'so as to show that the defendant was physically incapable of taking care was. That either Watercare or Papakura was shown to have been in with sawdust consider random! Papakura district Council [ 2002 ] 3 NZLR 308 ( Privy Council ) the imposition such...
Great Eastern Railway Livery,
Tixel Treatment Vs Microneedling,
Is 350 Voc Safe,
Articles H