Potato farmers fail in compensation claim

Press, 9 February 1983, Page 7

Potato farmers fail in compensation claim

Wellington reporter

Three North Canterbury farmers have failed in their claim for about $300,000 in compensation for having their farms quarantined for being infected with potato cyst nematode in 1975. The High Court in Wellington deciced that the three farmers had not established that at the time the declarations were made that the Director-General of Agriculture did not have the jurisdiction to make them.

Mr Justice Savage said, on the evidence, that he was satisfied the Director-Gen-eral did have jurisdiction.

Murray and Stuart Baxter, and Peter Stafford (Mr J. G. Fogarty) are farmers in the Malvern district. All three were growers of Grade Acertified seed potatoes when the potato cyst nematode was found on their farms.

Under various headings they sought about $150,000 each in damages and restitution. and also the lifting of the declarations.

His Honour accepted the case of the Attorney-General.

Mr K. D. Stone, that the cyst had been found on the lands in question at the time.

But his Honour said he did not find it surprising that the plaintiffs had challenged the declarations once they had realised the basis on whih they had been made. As a practical matter, to obtain and retain the confidgrowers, particularly those whose lands were affected, it would be desirable that there should be an opinion expressed by more than one person before land was made subject to such a declaration. Just how this should be accomplished was an administrative policy question. “But I would have thought that where a cyst is found on a property for the first time the person who made the diagnosis should, before dissection, refer it to one or more competent persons.” his Honour said. The Director-General would then be relying on the opinion of more than one professionally competent person. “It would be desirable also to retain, where possible, at

least one cyst for future, examination by the owner of’ the land and his experts, if he so wishes." he said.

All the plaintiffs’ claims and motions failed, and the question of costs was reserved.

The plaintiffs had submitted that they did not have to establish that the cyst was not on their lands, but that the Director-General of Agriculture had to establish that it was.

They then claimed the Director-General's method of doing this was inadequate to prove that the cysts had been found.

His Honour accepted this submission, but failed the action on another submission. This was that unless the cyst had been shown to be present beyond reasonable dispute by an informed person, then the burden of proof of establishing the presence of the cyst had not been met.

All the Director-General had to show was that the cyst had been found on the lands at the time of the declarations, his Honour said. The Director-General had done this.