Valleyfield P/L v Primac Ltd & Anor

[2003] QCA 339

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Torts
2. › Negligence
3. › Duty of care
4. › Pure economic loss
5. › Careless advice and statements
6. › No contractual relationship between parties
7. › Whether duty of care owed by designer of irrigation system to end user
8. › Salient features approach
9. › Vulnerability
10. › Reliance
11. › Control
1. Torts
2. › Negligence
3. › Breach of duty
4. › Standard of care
5. › Professional designer of irrigation system
6. › Whether adequate steps taken to investigate soil conditions
1. Torts
2. › Negligence
3. › Causation
4. › Whether breach materially contributed to damage
5. › Whether 'but for' test is exclusive test of causation
6. › March v E. & M.H. Stramare Pty Ltd
1. Damages
2. › Measure of damages in tort
3. › Pure economic loss
4. › Lost opportunity damages
5. › Whether plaintiff established it could and would have entered alternative arrangement
6. › Gates v City Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd
7. › Discount for vicissitudes of crop farming

Quick Take

A professional designer of an irrigation system owes a duty of care to the end user even absent a contractual relationship, where the user's reliance on the designer's expertise is known and the user is vulnerable to loss from negligent design. Damages for lost crop income due to a defective irrigation system must be discounted for the vicissitudes of crop farming (weather, insects, disease, market fluctuations), and additional costs of replacement systems beyond a reasonable mitigation period are too remote to recover as damages for pure economic loss.