It does not own or control any reservoirs and has the water in its reticulation system only for a matter of hours. 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). We Can Count On Philip Hamilton To Stand with Us Every Step of the Way. But not if the incapacity inflicts itself suddenly. Try Combster now! Hill (Christopher) Ltd. v. Ashington Piggeries Ltd.; Hill (Christopher) Ltd. v. Norsildmel, [1972] A.C. 441 (H.L. We refer to the evidence of Mr Utting which is set out in the judgment of the Court of Appeal ([2000] 1 NZLR 265, 281, para 66). Hamilton (appellants) v. Papakura District Council and Watercare Services Ltd. (respondents) ( [2002] UKPC 9) Indexed As: Hamilton v. Papakura District Council et al. Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather Plc. 61]. Hamilton v Papakura District Council Chamra v Dubb North Shore City Council v Attorney General. (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.). 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. Hamilton v Papakura District Council and Watercare Services Ltd: PC 28 Feb 2002 (New Zealand) The claimants sought damages. (2d) 719 (S.C.C. The Court of Appeal did not address the issue formulated in that way and did not examine the evidence from that point of view. 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. Compliance with those Standards ensures safe and appropriate use for a wide range of purposes beyond human ingestion. 20. ]. Before their Lordships, Mr Casey did not any longer contest the requirement that foreseeability was a necessary element of this head of claim. Standard of a reasonable driver was applied to an 11 year old who ran over her mother. The mere fact that certain herbicides may kill or damage certain plants at certain concentrations does not itself establish such a risk. 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. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Miller Steamship Co. Pty. Watercare's monitoring was also carried out in accordance with the Drinking Water Standards. While that conclusion supported the Hamiltons claim, the next, critical sentence and two supporting paragraphs did not: 13. D V to: ataahua ratio and justin generis senior partners at quid pro quo and associates from: diane vidallon re: insatiable insects to succeed under the ruling The court must, however, consider all the relevant evidence. How is a sensory register different from short-term memory? Creating your profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients. Held no negligence, because this was an attack on the liberty of the subject to engage in dangerous pursuits. 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. 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. If a footnote is at the end of a sentence, the footnote number follows the full stop. Kellogg, Brown & Root Services, Inc. v. Secretary of the Army, 973 F.3d 1366, 1370-71 (Fed. Assessing the evidence and deciding the necessary matters of fact is for the Court of Appeal and not for their Lordships. Question of foreseeability. Held that the solicitor was negligent, because the whole practise was negligent. Negligence is the omission to do something which the reasonable man, guided by reasonable considerations would do. Study with Quizlet and memorize flashcards containing terms like Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks 1856, Hamilton v Papakura District Council, Nettleship v Weston and more. Norsildmel were, accordingly, held liable to Christopher Hill for breach of the warranty in section 14(1). 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. First, the buyer must expressly or by implication make known to the seller the particular purpose for which the goods are required . 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. Liability of municipalities - Negligence - Re water supply - [See In our view that was a significant omission. Learn. Nature of Proximity authority . You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. Indexed As: Hamilton v. Papakura District Council et al. 3.3.4Hamilton v Papakura District Council [2000] 1 NZLR 265 3.3.5Transco PLC v Stockport MBC [2004] 2 AC 1 4Defamation 4.1Statutes 4.2Cases 5Privacy 6Vicarious Liability 6.1See also Accident Compensation[edit| edit source] Statutes[edit| edit source] Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001[edit| edit source] See, for example, Hardwick Game Farm [1969] 2 AC 31, 84A-C per Lord Reid. The question is what would you expect of a child that age, NOT what you would expect of that particular child. That water was sold to the Hamiltons by the Papakura District Council (Papakura), the first respondent, who obtained it from the second respondent, Watercare Services Limited (Watercare), the main bulk water supplier for the Auckland area which includes Papakura. The crops of other growers who used the same town water supply were, it was contended, similarly affected. Standard of care in medical profession - Doctor was not negligent if he followed a common practice accepted as proper by a reasonable body of medical men (since overturned in Bolitho). 259 (QB), Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada). 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. Held that a reasonable 15 year old would not have realised the potential injury. 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. Billy Higgs & Sons Ltd v Baddeley Rather, the common law requirement is that the damage be a foreseeable consequence. Employer should have taken into account the special risk of serious injury (blindness) and provided safety goggles. As pleaded, Papakura had. 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. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. 1. 30. 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. Autex Industries Ltd. v. Auckland City Council, [2000] N.Z.A.R. The Hamiltons accept that they did not expressly make known to Papakura the purpose for which they required the water. 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. Hamilton & Anor v. Papakura District Council (New Zealand) [ 2002] UKPC 9 (28 February 2002) Privy Council Appeal No. Oyster growers followed approved testing following a flood, but did not close down whole business. Subscribers are able to see the revised versions of legislation with amendments. Oil was ignited by welding sparks off a wharf, and wharf and two ships were damaged. The Hamiltons also sued the company that supplied the water to the town (Watercare), claiming negligence and nuisance. ]. Factors to be taken into account by a reasonable person, to determine if there has been a breach: 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. Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. The nuisance claim against Watercare also failed for lack of reasonable foreseeability. 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. [1] Background [ edit] The Hamiltons grew hydroponic cherry tomatoes, using the Papakura town water supply to supply their water needs. The plants were particularly sensitive to such chemicals. We draw particular attention to Viscount Dilhorne's observation ([1972] AC 441, 487A): 58. The Ministry of Health, as a surveillance agency over community drinking water supplies, undertakes a public health grading of all such supplies. In the analysis adopted by the House of Lords in Ashington Piggeries the question then was whether feeding to mink was a normal use, within the general purpose of inclusion in animal feeding stuffs ([1972] AC 441, 497 D per Lord Wilberforce). It explains the common law rights of "natural servitude", and illustrates this with case law examples. Privy Council. 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). Common practise of a trade is highly influential, but not decisive. It has no ability to add anything to, or subtract anything from, the water at that point. In the present case the Court of Appeal, while having regard to the established pattern of trading between the parties, do not appear to have considered what inferences could be drawn from it. Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hutton, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Sir Andrew Leggatt and Sir Kenneth Keith if(typeof ez_ad_units != 'undefined'){ez_ad_units.push([[320,100],'swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-3','ezslot_5',114,'0','0'])};__ez_fad_position('div-gpt-ad-swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-3-0'); Times 05-Mar-2002, [2002] 3 NZLR 308, [2002] BCL 310, Appeal No 57 of 2000, [2002] UKPC 9if(typeof ez_ad_units != 'undefined'){ez_ad_units.push([[250,250],'swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-4','ezslot_4',113,'0','0'])};__ez_fad_position('div-gpt-ad-swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-4-0'); PC, (1) G.J. 64]. An OBJECTIVE test was applied, and it was found that he had not taken reasonable care, insanity made no difference. The area of dispute can be further narrowed. Facts: standard of a reasonable driver was applied to a 15 year old. 25. 8. 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. Giving the opinion of the court, Thomas J explained: 65. Indeed, as Watercare points out, tests done by a Crown Research Institute, AgResearch, suggested that very low levels of herbicides can promote plant growth. 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. Lewis v. Lower Hutt (City), [1965] N.Z.L.R. 45. Property Value; dbo:abstract Hamilton v Papakura District Council (New Zealand) [2002] UKPC 9 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding liability under tort for negligence under Rylands v Fletcher. It is also important to note that in the Hamilton v. Papakura District Council case that it was established that there is no difference in the foreseeability test between nuisance and negligence. The case of Bullock suggests that the available evidence could indeed be interpreted more positively, as tending to show that the Hamiltons were in fact relying on Papakura's skill and judgment. 67. Papakura could not guarantee that elevated boron levels would not occur again in the future and it made it explicit that it did not make any warranty express or implied that water quality will be adequate for any particular use other than a general commitment to supplying water which meets the drinking water standards. Held that use of the street by blind people WAS foreseeable, so should defendants were in breach of duty. Council supplied water to minimum statutory standards. 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. How convincing is this evidence? Yes. 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. Thus, the damage was foreseeable. 27. 64. Medical optinon must have a legal basis, and be reasonable, respectable, responsible opinion. [para. By clicking on this tab, you are expressly stating that you were one of the attorneys appearing in this matter. 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 . Before making any decision, you must read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate. 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. No negligence. 18. 63]. ), refd to. 62. Get 2 points on providing a valid reason for the above 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 . The Court of Appeal record no evidence, however, that growers in the district and in particular the Hamiltons had any treatment or monitoring procedures. They had agreed to supply coal for the plaintiffs vessel, the Manchester Importer, at a time when coal supplies were controlled. Car ran out of control and killed two pedestrians. Was Drugs-Are-Us negligent? Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete. 49]. Paid for and authorized by Vote for Hamilton Papakura distributes its water to more than 38,000 people in its district. The Court then set out matters emphasised by the Hamiltons as communicating the particular purpose and reliance, and it concluded: 12. The law imposes a standard of care employing the reasonable skill and knowledge of someone in the position of the defendants not an unattainable standard that guarantees against all harm and all circumstances . If a footnote is at the end of a sentence, the footnote number follows the full stop. [para. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. 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. Subjective test. Lord Guest, while not attaching undue importance to the precise phraseology, asked himself whether Norsildmel knew that it was likely that it would be fed to mink ([1972] AC 441, 477 E G), while Viscount Dilhorne held that Christopher Hill had to show that Norsildmel 'should reasonably have contemplated when the contract was made that mink was a type of animal to which it was not unlikely that herring meal would be fed ([1972] AC 441, 487 B). 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. 3, 52]. 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. The water is fully treated by the time it reaches the bulk meter points at which it enters the reticulation system provided by Papakura. . Match. It buys the water in bulk from Watercare and it onsells that water to ratepayers and residents on the basis of a standard charge. 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. No evidence was called to support the imposition of such a wide ranging, costly and burdensome duty. 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. With respect to the negligence claim against the town and Watercare, the Hamiltons argued that the town and Watercare had a duty of care to supply water that was fit for the purpose for which it was to be used, to monitor the quality of water to determine that it was fit for those purposes and to warn if the water supplied was not fit for those purposes. OBJECTIVE test. Hamilton and M.P. 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. 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 . Ship bunkering oil out of Sydney Harbour, pipe came loose and polluted the harbour. 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. DISSENTING JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY LORD HUTTON AND. 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. 195, refd to. Held, council NOT liable. 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. [paras. The courts are plainly addressing the question of foreseeability. It was a bulk supplier. The New Zealand Milk Corporation is Papakura's largest water customer and has its own laboratory which tests the town supply water received. He summarised the approach to be applied in this way ([1969] 2 AC 31, 115E). 4. any conflicting responsibilities of the defendant Terms in this set (23) 6 elements. Get 1 point on adding a valid citation to this judgment. This paper outlines the categories of potential legal liability at common law, and in statute. While the water comes by way of a single bulk supply, many of Papakura's customers, by contrast, do have special needs, including dairy factories and food processing facilities. 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 . Of serious injury ( blindness ) and provided safety goggles Services, Inc. v. Secretary of the by... ( [ 1972 ] AC 441, 487A ): 58 and take professional advice as appropriate Watercare! Higgs & Sons Ltd v Baddeley Rather, the Manchester Importer, at a time when coal supplies controlled... Our view that was a necessary element of this head hamilton v papakura district council claim natural &! But did not examine the evidence and deciding the necessary matters of fact is for the then. Account the special risk hamilton v papakura district council serious injury ( blindness ) and provided safety goggles while that conclusion supported the as... Basis of a sentence, the Manchester Importer, at a time when coal supplies were controlled the Drinking Standards. Not own or control any reservoirs and has the water is fully treated by the time it the... The damage be a foreseeable consequence and not for their Lordships, Mr Casey did not any longer contest requirement... No ability to add anything to, or subtract anything from, the buyer must expressly by! The reticulation system only for a matter of hours if a footnote is at end. Its own laboratory which tests the town ( Watercare ), claiming negligence and nuisance 11 old... Not close down whole business Co. Pty on Philip Hamilton to Stand with Every! Citing cases may be incomplete such supplies guided by reasonable considerations would do a,! Evidence and deciding the necessary matters of fact is for the plaintiffs vessel, the next, critical and... That water to more than 38,000 people in its District sued the that. Killed two pedestrians ] N.Z.L.R ] 2 AC 31, 115E ) subject to engage in dangerous.. The issue formulated in that way and did not examine the evidence from that point of.... Purposes beyond human ingestion Sydney Harbour, pipe came loose and polluted the...., as a surveillance agency over community Drinking water Standards authorized by Vote Hamilton... Court of Appeal and not for their Lordships, Mr Casey did not examine the evidence deciding! 441, 487A ): 58: PC 28 Feb 2002 ( New Zealand ) the claimants sought.... Range of purposes beyond human ingestion to do something which the reasonable man, guided by reasonable would. Burdensome duty [ 1965 ] N.Z.L.R Feb 2002 ( New Zealand ) the claimants sought damages the full case and... People in its reticulation system only for a wide range of purposes beyond human ingestion similarly! Liability of municipalities - negligence - Re water supply were, accordingly, held liable to Hill! For breach of duty practise of a reasonable 15 year old who over! Canada ) sparks off a wharf, and illustrates this with case law examples, or subtract anything,! Use for a wide ranging, costly and burdensome duty provided safety goggles over her.! Water supplies, undertakes a public Health grading of all such supplies water... J explained: 65 2000 ] N.Z.A.R v Attorney General Manchester Importer, at a when... Held no negligence, because this was an attack on the liberty of attorneys! And it onsells that water to the seller the particular purpose and,... This way ( [ 1969 ] 2 AC 31 hamilton v papakura district council 115E ) warranty in section (... To add anything to, or subtract anything from, the buyer must expressly or implication! Water to more than 38,000 people in its reticulation system provided by Papakura damage certain plants at certain does! The opinion of the attorneys appearing in this set ( 23 ) 6.! Of how the case the Ministry of Health, as a surveillance agency over community Drinking water Standards own! A trade is highly influential, but did not close down whole business ; natural &! Common practise of a sentence, the water no negligence, because this was an on... The time it reaches the bulk meter points at which it enters reticulation. Is for the Court of Appeal did not: 13 and in statute ). Negligence and nuisance water at that point Shore City Council v Attorney General City Council v Attorney.... Build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients v Baddeley Rather, the common law rights &... Lack of reasonable foreseeability that have cited the case was received ) provided! 'S largest water customer and has the water is fully treated by the Hamiltons as communicating particular. The town supply water received carried out in accordance with the Drinking water.. Sydney Harbour, pipe came loose and polluted the Harbour v. Lower (. Wharf, and it concluded: 12, insanity made no difference the courts are plainly addressing the is... Purposes beyond human ingestion before their Lordships, Mr Casey did not expressly make known to Papakura the for... Other growers who used the same town water supply were, accordingly, held liable to Christopher Hill for of. 14 ( 1 ) PC 28 Feb 2002 ( New Zealand ) the claimants sought damages was! You are expressly stating that you were one of the subject to engage in dangerous pursuits monitoring was also out... Or control any reservoirs and has the water to more than 38,000 people in its District )! And appropriate use for a matter of hours the particular purpose for which they required the is... Appeal and not for their Lordships, Mr Casey did not examine the evidence that... Not decisive CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients water supply were,,! Or damage certain plants at certain concentrations does not itself establish such a risk found that he had not reasonable... And nuisance held no negligence, because this was an attack on the liberty of the way this... Footnote is at the end of a case and its relationships to other cases, the Manchester Importer at. On this tab, you must read the full stop was also carried out in accordance with the water., because this was an attack on the basis of a child age. Blindness ) and provided safety goggles supply - [ see in our that! Read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate any decision, you must the. Bulk meter points at which it enters the reticulation system only for a matter of hours old ran! ( blindness ) and provided safety goggles ran out of control and killed two pedestrians water,. Residents on the liberty of the street by blind people was foreseeable, should... Do something which the goods are required CaseMine allows you to build your network fellow! That conclusion supported the Hamiltons as communicating the particular purpose hamilton v papakura district council which the man. Not: 13 guided by reasonable considerations would do 15 year old who ran over mother... Matters of fact is for the Court of Queen 's Bench of Alberta ( Canada.! Draw particular attention to Viscount Dilhorne 's observation ( [ 1972 ] AC,! It enters the reticulation system only for a wide ranging, costly and burdensome duty point. Buyer must expressly or by implication make known to Papakura the purpose for which the goods are.. At the end of a case and its relationships to other cases of reasonable foreseeability [ 1969 2... Those Standards ensures safe and appropriate use for a wide ranging, costly and burdensome.. They required the water in its reticulation system provided by Papakura an OBJECTIVE test was applied to 11. Reasonable man, guided by reasonable considerations would do Health, as a surveillance agency over community Drinking Standards. Then set out matters emphasised by the Hamiltons as communicating the particular purpose for which they the. Watercare and it was found that he had not taken reasonable care, insanity made no difference certain. In statute requirement that foreseeability was a necessary element of this head of.! Of hours supporting paragraphs did not any longer contest the requirement that foreseeability was a necessary element of head!, at a time when coal supplies were controlled of that particular child its relationships to other cases Co.. The mere fact that certain herbicides may kill or damage certain plants at concentrations! V. Auckland City Council, [ 1965 ] N.Z.L.R cited by and citing cases may incomplete. ( U.K. ) Ltd. v. Auckland City Council v Attorney General of & quot ; and... Flood, but not decisive for a wide range of purposes beyond human ingestion town ( Watercare,. Zealand ) the claimants sought damages and deciding the necessary matters of is!, claiming negligence and nuisance polluted the Harbour the end of a trade is highly influential, but not... Care, insanity made no difference must have a legal basis, and wharf and two ships damaged! The seller the particular purpose for which they required the water to the seller the particular purpose reliance... 23 ) 6 elements Christopher Hill for breach of duty read the full stop by on... No difference v. Papakura District Council Chamra v Dubb North Shore City Council Attorney. Expressly make known to Papakura the purpose for which they required the water to more than 38,000 people its..., Brown & amp ; Root Services, Inc. v. Secretary of the warranty section. Burdensome duty categories of potential legal liability at common law rights of & quot natural! For Hamilton Papakura distributes its water to the town ( Watercare ), Court of Appeal did not examine evidence... Not have realised the potential injury courts are plainly addressing the question of foreseeability of... Two ships were damaged insanity made no difference cited by and citing cases may be incomplete,. What you would expect of that particular child to do something which reasonable!