Sparnon, David Charles & Ors v Apand Pty Ltd & Ors [1996] FCA 1139

Apand Pty Ltd breached its duty of care to the Sparnon partnership by failing to foresee and guard against the risk of infected seed, and by supplying seed from an area known for disease risks. Apand breached implied terms of contract for fitness and merchantable quality and is liable in damages. No misleading or deceptive conduct under Trade Practices Act was established. No duty of care or negligence established against the Minister or State in seed monitoring or post-outbreak advice. Claims for purely economic loss by fourth to eighteenth applicants fail as no proximity or duty of care existed.

Parties: First Applicant: David Charles Sparnon; Second Applicant: Sandra Kay Sparnon; Third Applicant: Michael David Sparnon; Fourth Applicant: Frank Perre; Fifth Applicant: Caterina Perre; Sixth Applicant: Pasquale Perre; Seventh Applicant: Mary Perre; Eighth Applicant: Guiseppe Domenico Perre; Ninth Applicant: Maria Perre; Tenth Applicant: Jim Perre; Eleventh Applicant: Frances Perre; Twelfth Applicant: Warruga Farms Pty Ltd; Thirteenth Applicant: Perre's Vineyards Pty Ltd; Fourteenth Applicant: Rangara Pty Ltd; Fifteenth Applicant: Pasquale Perre; Sixteenth Applicant: Grace Perre; Seventeenth Applicant: Francesco Perre; Eighteenth Applicant: Maria Perre; First Respondent: Apand Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: The Minister of Primary Industries; Third Respondent: The State of South Australia
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 20 December 1996
Procedural Posture: Civil / Judgment
Outcome: Partially allowed, partially dismissed
Legal Topics: Duty of Care, Proximity, Breach of Implied Terms, Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Assessment of Damages, Economic Loss

Negligence Contract Trade Practices Duty of Care Proximity Breach of Implied Terms Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Assessment of Damages +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

David Charles Sparnon

First Applicant

Sandra Kay Sparnon

Second Applicant

Michael David Sparnon

Third Applicant

Frank Perre

Fourth Applicant

Caterina Perre

Fifth Applicant

Pasquale Perre

Sixth Applicant

Mary Perre

Seventh Applicant

Guiseppe Domenico Perre

Eighth Applicant

Maria Perre

Ninth Applicant

Jim Perre

Tenth Applicant

Frances Perre

Eleventh Applicant

Warruga Farms Pty Ltd

Twelfth Applicant

Perre's Vineyards Pty Ltd

Thirteenth Applicant

Rangara Pty Ltd

Fourteenth Applicant

Pasquale Perre

Fifteenth Applicant

Grace Perre

Sixteenth Applicant

Francesco Perre

Seventeenth Applicant

Maria Perre

Eighteenth Applicant

Apand Pty Ltd

First Respondent

The Minister of Primary Industries

Second Respondent

The State of South Australia

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether Apand Pty Ltd owed and breached a duty of care to the Sparnon partnership and Perre interests
2 Whether Apand Pty Ltd breached implied terms of fitness and merchantable quality under contract
3 Whether Apand Pty Ltd engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct under Trade Practices Act 1976

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Partially allowed, partially dismissed

Orders

Judgment for first, second, and third applicants against first respondent for $51,200.
Judgment for second and third respondent dismissing the claims of first, second, and third applicants.