Perre V Apand : Negligence Towards Agricultural Infectious Disease Management


Task: A brief report on Frank Perre v Apand Pvt Ltd (1999) HCA 36..


Facts: In the Perre v. Apand case, the petitioners are a collection of potato farmers from Australia's south who ship their crops to the country's west. An infectious condition known as bacterial wilt spread throughout the farmland of the potato growers as a result of the defendant's carelessness and negligence. Western Australian Regulation prohibited the use of potatoes from diseased and neighbouring agriculture due to the potential for additional disease transmission. Farmers in the Perre v. Apand case file a lawsuit against the defenders, accusing them of contaminating their farms with bacterial wilt and claiming damages as a result of their breach of a duty of care.


Do the defenders owe the petitioner a duty of care even when the petitioners were not directly harmed by the defenders but rather as a result of the defenders' negligence?

• Is a defenders' sheer economic loss the only factor considered when evaluating the duty of care?

laws that apply to the Perre v. Apad case

Duty of Care: This word refers to the idea that any potential loss that could result from carelessness or negligence on the part of the person or party performing the duty should be avoided. Every person is required by law to avoid potential hazards while performing any task in order to prevent any kind of injury. The Donoghue v. Stevenson case, which highlighted the harm done to neighbours, raised the same point of view.

Knowledge: When examining the concept of responsibility of care, knowledge should be taken into account. The duty conductors should be aware of the dangers involved and be able to forecast them well in advance of when they will occur.

Reasonable Foreseeability—This element supports the duty of care, which requires that a prudent person's conduct be justified in light of what is reasonably predictable under normal circumstances. This would allow for the required safeguards to be taken, lowering the likelihood and danger of injury to the neighbour [1].

Vulnerability is the state in which the defendant party has more influence over the circumstances and actions taken that harmed the petitioner. The defendant in this Perre v. Apand case is liable for the petitioner's economic loss. The petitioner must take personal safety precautions against potential threats. Even though the defendant played a significant part in the loss occurring, the petitioner cannot compel the opposing party to participate if it is determined that he has not accepted this obligation [2].

Pure economic Loss - Only losses that are structurally related to physical ailments are seen and observable. The losses brought on by other factors might not be estimated and require more work to calculate. Numerous factors and dimensions, including potential future loss and loss that has already occurred in various ways, must be evaluated in this situation. It will be extremely difficult to calculate the indirect loss that took place.

Analysis and the Parties' Arguments

Arguments advanced by the petitioners include: In the Perre v. Apand case, the petitioners made the claim that the defendant's actions had resulted in economic loss. Because the defendants were said to belong to a vulnerable group, the appellants anticipated that the defendants would make good on the harm they had done.

Arguments advanced by the Defenders: In this instance, the defenders had advanced the argument examining the association and affiliation between the Petitioners and the Defenders in an effort to be held exclusively liable for the direct and pure economic loss sustained by the Petitioners.