Search

The article discusses the court case the Simpson and Brighouse v. Walker, which concerns the estates from a dairy farm at Waiuku. The Court of Appeal ordered family lawyer Shaun Bellamy who had acted for all family members to pay over 135,000 U.S. dollars in damages plus interest to two daughters who were unhappy with what they had received from their parents' estates.

The article discusses a court case wherein North Dairy has won damages in a claim in the High Court at Timaru, New Zealand. A brief background on the contract signed by the dairy farming company with Agricultural Contracting is presented. An investigation found that Agricultural Contracting had mistakenly applied glyphosphate because of its use of the decanting process. The judge was convinced that Agricultural was in breach of its implied duty of care to North Dairy.

The article reports that judges continue to impose fines to dairy farmers in New Zealand following effluent spills. An overview of the effluent spill incident that happened on a farm managed by David Van Bysterveldt and owned by the David Van Bysterveldt Family Trust in December 2011 is provided. Van Bysterveldt pleaded guilty to a charge under the Resource Management Act 1991 and paid a fine of 33,075 New Zealand dollars.

The article provides an overview of some court disputes in both the Family Court and the High Court of New Zealand over the division of farm properties following the ending of relationships. In one case, a Family Court judge ruled that three-fifths interest of a man in a home was relationship property and the woman was entitled to half of the former's interest. In another case, a High Court judge ruled that the only way to determine the true value of a farm was for it to be sold.

The article discusses the New Zealand court case Rahopara Farms v. Taylor, wherein the court was required to make rulings over a dispute over a property purchase. Rahopara agreed in writing in 2008 to purchase Fiona Taylor's property for 1.1 million New Zealand dollars. Rahopara later sought repair costs, with Taylor claiming that the contract was partly written and partly oral. The court declares that oral evidence is insufficient to change the contract and decided in favor of Rahopara.

The article discusses the New Zealand court case Exceed Dairies v. Whyte which involves a dispute over dairy farm leases and sharemilking agreements. Nigel van Dorsser, owner of the dairy cow nutritional supplement company Essential Nutrition and Exceed Dairies, has entered into a sharemilking agreement with the Whyte family farming Dacre. The court declares that Exceed is entitled to the sum of 253,987 New Zealand dollars and that the Whytes are not entitled to the remedy of quantum meruit.

The author discusses the court proceedings over the sale of a herd of cows alleged to have mastitis in New Zealand. The case involves Clover Flats Dairy Farm which sold 142 cows to Cheryl and Max Wilson who refused to pay for the animals claiming that they suffered from mastitis. An associate judge ruled against the Wilsons who failed to file a statement of defence to court proceedings brought by Clover Flats Dairy. Wilsons' arguments to set aside the judgment are discussed.

The article discusses court cases related to disputes in water in New Zealand's dairy industry. It states that in R. v. Derek Allan Newton, Newton underwent trials related to alleged breach of the Resource Management Act (RMA) 1991. It mentions the Main Farm v. Otago Regional Council, which involved disagreement on a water permit's beneficial ownership.

The article discusses the latest developments in the implementation of the dairy effluent scheme in Northland, New Zealand as of June 2011. Northern Regional Council water and waste monitoring programme manager Tess Dacre said that farmers are improving in dealing with dairy effluent but do not yet meet the requirements of enforcement officers. It cites the case of farmer Mervyn Pinny and his farm manager Hugh Bolton, who were penalized due to violations in discharging dairy effluent.

The article discusses court cases concerning the avoidance of liabilities in decisions dealing with wills, employment law and workplace safety. In Simpson and Anor v Walker and Ors, deciding who to leave the farm in one's will can have consequences years later. In McFadyen and Anor v Styles and Anor, the judge ordered the two parties to look for a solution that would preserve goodwill in the family. In A Worker v A Farmer, the Court of Appeal reversed a decision made by the Employment Court against the worker who claimed unjustifiable dismissal.

The article reports that the Commerce Commission in New Zealand is asking players in the dairy industry to provide ideas for the resolution of the conflict between Fonterra and cheese producers Kaimai and Grate Kiwi. The conflict between the companies is connected to regulation a(1) of the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk) Regulations 2001 (DIRA). The Commission first ordered Fonterra to supply milk to the cheese makers.

The article discusses a court case involving a farm manager concerning dairy effluent discharge into streams that fed into Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere. District Court at Christchurch Judge Colin Doherty found that effluent had entered groundwater. The farm manager involved was fined 20,000 U.S. dollars and sentenced to 260 hours community service in 2011.

The article reports that Armer Farms has been fined 72,000 New Zealand dollars plus costs for its unlawful discharge of dairy effluent on June 26, 2012. The case against the farm was initiated by the Bay of Plenty Regional Council after its effluent irrigation system failed in October 2012, resulting to a 40-centimeters (cm) split in a 60-meter pipe feeding an irrigator. District Court Judge Robert Wolff ruled that the farm failed to implement an efficient system for checking its irrigator.

The article discusses two court cases in New Zealand, that of Junior Farms versus Commissioner of Inland Revenue, and that of National Bank of New Zealand versus Clements. In the former, it states that the plaintiff, known only as Plumley, sold a portion of his land to a company, and was charged extra taxes for the transaction. He won the case and was awarded 989,967 dollars. In the latter, the Clement family sued a bank for selling them high risk land, lost and had to pay 1 million dollars.

This article explains the importance of dairy farmers checking legal documents themselves in New Zealand. It reflects on some court cases involving disputes over legal agreements. It discusses the move of the Court of Appeal to examine the meaning of an amended settlement agreement between parties during the acquisition of dairy farms.