Australian High Court Upholds Lower Court Rulings, Finds No Duty of Care Owed by Seed Company
The High Court of Australia has dismissed an appeal made by a group of sorghum growers from Queensland and New South Wales against the seed company Advanta Seeds. The growers, who claimed that a sorghum seed product they purchased was contaminated with shattercane, had sought to hold the company accountable for alleged negligence that they argued led to significant crop damage and economic losses.
The growers, led by Andrew Jenner, trading as Mallonland Pty Ltd, and ME & JL Nitschke Pty Ltd, initially launched a class action against Advanta Seeds (then Pacific Seeds) in 2017, representing approximately 100 sorghum growers. They claimed that the contaminated seed, sold between 2010 and 2014, resulted in widespread shattercane infestations across roughly 28,000 hectares of land, causing an estimated $105 million in losses.
Despite these claims, the High Court upheld the rulings of the Supreme Court of Queensland and the Court of Appeals, finding that Advanta Seeds did not owe the growers a duty of care. The court noted that the warnings and information printed on the seed product’s packaging clearly stated that the seed had a minimum purity of 99 percent and could contain up to 1 percent of other plant matter. As such, the court determined that no duty of care could arise from the circumstances because the potential for impurities was explicitly acknowledged by the warnings on the product packaging.
The judgment also highlighted that, while it was “reasonably foreseeable” that the growers could suffer economic loss if reasonable care was not taken in the production process, Advanta Seeds did not know that the seed it sold was contaminated. The court acknowledged that Advanta had failed to meet the standard of care expected of a reasonable producer by not growing out the contaminated seed in the originating production block. However, it ultimately ruled that this failure did not constitute a breach of duty that would result in liability.
Despite the plaintiffs’ loss, the case underscores the complexities involved in agricultural product liability and the challenges that growers face in holding suppliers accountable for product contamination. While the court recognized the growers’ economic losses, it found that the legal framework did not support their claims against Advanta Seeds under the circumstances presented.
Error
