Privy Council 2005
Cruickshanks acted for the defendant. The Hamiltons had been supplied water by Papkura D.C, who had received their supply from Watercare. It was alleged that the water supplied was contaminated by the weed spray Grazon in the catchment area for the lake from which the town water supply was taken. Damage occurred to the Hamiltons’ cherry tomato crops at two of their properties, but not a third where the property was not serviced by the town’s water supply. Their claims against Papkura D.C were in contract and negligence and nuisance and under the principle in Rylands v Fletcher (1869). The High Court, however, rejected these claims on the basis that Watercare complied with the 1995 drinking water standards, and owed no duty to the Hamilton’s of a higher quality of water for their particular horticultural purposes.
