Test. Proof of negligence - Res Ispa Loquitur "the thing speaks for itself". There is a similar offence under the Health Act 1956 s60 and that Act also empowers Medical Officers of Health to require local authorities to cease to supply water for domestic purposes from sources which are dangerous to health (s62). Was Drugs-Are-Us negligent? 556 (C.A. No negligence. Get 1 point on adding a valid citation to this judgment. 19, 55]. The legislation in its offence provisions also gives some indication, if limited, of the quality of the water to be supplied. 46. Held breach of duty. In terms of those results, the concentration for triclopyr was at least 10 parts per billion (ppb). The Hamiltons also sued the company that supplied the water to the town (Watercare), claiming negligence and nuisance. 17. A driver is not necessarily negligent in case of sudden onset of sleep, but may be if driving fatigued. Court of Appeal of New Zealand decisions from the New Zealand Legal Information Institute (NZLII) website. Sale of Goods Act (U.K.) (1908), sect. They must make sure that the treatment is not HARMFUL by checking orthodox research. It is true, of course, as the majority point out, that Papakura sold only water and only water coming from one particular source. Supplying water for the purpose of covered crop cultivation is supplying it for a particular purpose in terms of section 16(a) of the 1908 Act. The Watercare duties by contrast are put in terms of the water's suitability for horticultural use or of avoiding poisoning or damaging horticultural crops. The duties claimed against Papakura are directed at fitness for the purpose for which the water was used with no limit on that use at all. Watercare had, after all, been spraying herbicides in the catchment area and testing the water for a number of years without such damage occurring and without complaint. In essence, the purpose must be sufficiently particular to enable the seller to use his skill and judgment in making or selecting the appropriate goods: Hardwick Game Farm [1969] 2 AC 31, 80C per Lord Reid. Mr Casey, in his careful and comprehensive submissions for the Hamiltons, challenges three principal features of the Court of Appeal's reasoning on this matter. 24. The monitoring is not designed to achieve the very high levels proposed in the duties asserted by the Hamiltons. Standard of care expected of children. 5. In case of any confusion, feel free to reach out to us.Leave your message here. 2. Negligence - Duty of care - Duty to warn - [See Next, to require that either Papakura or Watercare ensure that the town water supply had a zero level of triclopyr contamination would be unrealistic in this country with its agricultural based economy. We remind ourselves of two further points. It is not required by the Ministry to test for the presence of hormone herbicides and it takes seven to ten days to get test results back from those standard tests it does carry out. The appellants emphasise that only one percent of water is ingested by humans and question why the other 99% should not be subject to any standard. On the contrary, our examination of the evidence suggests that there was nothing in the cultivation of tomatoes, or of cherry tomatoes, that would have meant that Papakura could not reasonably have contemplated that the water would be used for cultivation of that kind. )(.65)^x(.35)^{5-x}}{(x ! OBJECTIVE test. Special circumstances of a rushed emergency callout. We do not provide advice. Papakura distributes its water to more than 38,000 people in its district. Mental disability - NZ. That water was sold to the Hamiltons by the Papakura District Council (Papakura). If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. 32. Reviews aren't verified, but Google checks for and removes fake content when it's identified. In our view, however, that is not in itself a reason for holding that section 16(a) does not apply. D V to: ataahua ratio and justin generis senior partners at quid pro quo and associates from: diane vidallon re: insatiable insects to succeed under the ruling No evidence was called to support the imposition of such a wide ranging, costly and burdensome duty. Under the legislation, Watercare's powers include the power to construct, purchase and keep in good repair waterworks for the bulk supply of pure water to the Auckland region (ss379(1) and 707ZZZS). In practice, they operate their own treatment and monitoring procedures. Lord Guest, while not attaching undue importance to the precise phraseology, asked himself whether Norsildmel knew that it was likely that it would be fed to mink ([1972] AC 441, 477 E G), while Viscount Dilhorne held that Christopher Hill had to show that Norsildmel 'should reasonably have contemplated when the contract was made that mink was a type of animal to which it was not unlikely that herring meal would be fed ([1972] AC 441, 487 B). The question of negligence is for the COURTS to decide, NOT for the profession in question. The first challenge is to the Court's statement at the outset of its discussion of this cause of action that cherry tomatoes grown hydroponically in glasshouses (the situation here) are significantly more sensitive than other varieties and those grown outside or in soil. [para. CREATING SAFER COMMUNITIES FOR ALL VIRGINIANS. For the reasons which we have given we consider that the Court of Appeal erred in law in making their assessment of the evidence and hence in the conclusions which they drew from it in respect of the requirements of section 16(a). It is also important to note that in the Hamilton v. Papakura District Council case that it was established that there is no difference in the foreseeability test between nuisance and negligence. Held he was NOT negligent because he was unaware of the disabling event. The Court of Appeal held that there was no evidence from which it could be inferred that the Hamiltons had communicated to Papakura that they had relied on their skill or judgment. The plants were particularly sensitive to such chemicals. Judicial Committee of the Privy Council The area of dispute can be further narrowed. Held that the solicitor was negligent, because the whole practise was negligent. Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. It was easy enough to fix the leak, and the defendants should have done this. This paper outlines the categories of potential legal liability at common law, and in statute. 2. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. Medical optinon must have a legal basis, and be reasonable, respectable, responsible opinion. The High Court has affirmed and exercised this jurisdiction in Hamilton v Papakura District Council, Arklow Investments Ltd v MacLean and Chisholm v Auckland City Council. Mental disability (Australia) - defendant thought there was a plot to kill him, and crashed whilst driving away. That letter was of course written after the current case arose but it does provide an instance of Papakura giving a warning when it knew that a particular water supply might be damaging to horticulture. swarb.co.uk is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire, HD6 2AG. 53. Response to GLAA 1997 Questionnaire for Ward 6 DC Council Candidates. Only full case reports are accepted in court. (There was some question whether the 1984 rather than the 1995 Standards were applicable. * Enter a valid Journal (must Held, no negligence (he was not sufficiently self-possessed to have control of the car). Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hutton, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Sir Andrew Leggatt and Sir Kenneth Keith. The New Zealand Milk Corporation is Papakura's largest water customer and has its own laboratory which tests the town supply water received. Search over 120 million documents from over 100 countries including primary and secondary collections of legislation, case law, regulations, practical law, news, forms and contracts, books, journals, and more. 1. was the thing brought onto land 2. thing likely to do mischief 3. for own purpose 4. Rebuilding After the COVID-19 PANDEMIC. Use our proprietary AI tool CaseIQ to find other relevant judgments with just one click. Great Britain. However, the Court continued, that proposition did not avoid, indeed it emphasised the importance of, the statutory requirement that the particular purpose be made known by the buyer to the seller. ), refd to. They said that there was no evidence that Papakura knew that the growers relied on the water for use with sensitive crops without any testing or treatment. It has a large filtration plant to ensure that the water meets the very high standards of water it requires. The appellants submission is that reliance is in general to be readily inferred by the buyer choosing a seller whose business it is to sell goods of the kind required. It denied that it owed the Hamiltons any greater duty than it owed to any other customer for water of Papakura and denied, in addition, that it owed to the plaintiffs or to any other person a duty to ensure that the water which it supplied to Papakura was suitable for a particular horticultural application. Indeed, as Watercare points out, tests done by a Crown Research Institute, AgResearch, suggested that very low levels of herbicides can promote plant growth. Cammell Laird & Co. v. Manganese Bronze and Brass Co., [1934] A.C. 402 (H.L. 42. DISSENTING JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY LORD HUTTON AND. Professionals have a duty to take care, not a duty to always be right. Held, council NOT liable. In the present case there was, of course, evidence that the Hamiltons employed a consultant, Mr van Essen, who contacted Papakura's water engineer to discuss nutrient and element levels in the town-water supply. Held, no negligence. [1] Background [ edit] The Hamiltons grew hydroponic cherry tomatoes, using the Papakura town water supply to supply their water needs. Negligence - Duty of care - General principles - Scope of duty - [See The case of Bullock suggests that the available evidence could indeed be interpreted more positively, as tending to show that the Hamiltons were in fact relying on Papakura's skill and judgment. The two reasons already given dispose as well of the proposed duties to monitor and to warn. 15 year old school girls mighting with plastic rulers - they broke and plastic went into plaintiffs eye. Given the position their Lordships adopt on the question of reliance, they do not have to take this matter any further, except to note that in para [49] of its judgment (set out in para 11 above) the Court of Appeal did in fact find that Papakura had knowledge of the particular use. Nuisance - General principles and definitions - Actionable nuisance - What constitutes - [See 1. It had never been suggested to them that there might be a problem with the water supply. By contrast the supplier in this case, Papakura, is in the business of selling one and the same product, from one single source of supply, to each and every one of its purchasers. As requested by Mr Casey (in the event of the appeal failing), the question of costs is reserved. 3. In the end, this case is a narrow one to be determined on its own facts. Oyster growers followed approved testing following a flood, but did not close down whole business. 265, refd to. The courts are plainly addressing the question of foreseeability. Social value - Successful action against police, where police pursuit resulted in a crash. 18. STOPPING GOVERNMENT OVERREACH. Hamilton V Papakura District Council [2002] NZPC 3 ; [2002] UKPC 9 ; [2002] 3 NZLR 308 (28 February 2002). Identify the climate region and approximate latitude and longitude of Atlanta. The Court of Appeal put the matter this way: 38. Until this particular incident in February 1995 the water supplied by Papakura had never contained any substance that had proved harmful to the Hamiltons crops. Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. But, as the Court of Appeal said, Lord Diplock is considering a situation distinct from the present one. Hamilton v Papakura District Council (CM 97) NZ Court of Appeal Foreseeability of harm Facts There were growers of cherry tomatoes They were growing the tomatoes hydroponically They were spraying chemicals (weed spray), and was a lot of spraying around big lake The lake supplied some of the water for the cherry tomatoes (hydroponic) A The essential point is that it would never have occurred to Papakura that the Hamiltons were relying on it to provide water of the quality for which they now contend. Hamilton v Papakura District Council (New Zealand) [2002] UKPC 9 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding liability under tort for negligence under Rylands v Fletcher. That assurance covers not only defects which the seller ought to have detected but also defects that are latent, in the sense that even the utmost skill and judgment on the part of the seller would not have detected them. Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile. Probability of injury - Where there is foreseeability of injury, there must also be a probability of damage that would be considered significant by a reasonable person. But not if the incapacity inflicts itself suddenly. 69. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the cited cases and legislation of a document. Vote Philip Hamilton for the House of Delegates District 57. [9] It was held that the use of the water supply was so specific. Torts - Topic 2004 Before making any decision, you must read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate. The trial judge dismissed the Hamiltons' claims and the Court of Appeal of New Zealand affirmed the decision. Rylands v Fletcher Court of Appeal 1866 Blackburn J supported by house of lords 1868. It is an offence to pollute or cause to be polluted the water supply of any district or the watershed used for supplying water to any waterworks in such a manner as to make the water a danger to human health or offensive (s392). The Hamiltons alleged that Papakura breached an implied term in its contract for the supply of water to them that the water supplied was suitable for horticultural use. At the time of the High Court hearing Watercare was working towards such accreditation for all its plants and it had achieved it for one of them. Nuisance - Water pollution - General - [See Subscribers are able to see the list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found. Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, 2002. 28. Hardwick Game Farm v. Suffolk Agricultural Poultry Producers' Association Ltd. - see Kendall (Henry) & Sons (A Firm) v. Lillico (William) & Sons Ltd. Munshaw Colour Service Ltd. v. Vancouver (City) (1962), 33 D.L.R. Their Lordships accordingly do not find it necessary to discuss other possible answers to this head of liability presented by Watercare or the issues about the relationship between liability in negligence, nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher considered in the House of Lords in Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather Plc [1994] 2 AC 264, in the High Court of Australia in Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd (1994) 179 CLR 520 and by two Judges of the New Zealand Court of Appeal in Autex Industries Ltd v Auckland City Council [2000] NZAR 324. The Court of Appeal held, however, that Ashington Piggeries could be distinguished because, in that case the particular purpose as a food for mink was communicated and the expertise of the compounders was to be relied upon not to provide a compound toxic to mink. Please log in or sign up for a free trial to access this feature. This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. The claims in nuisance, of having allowed the escape of materials brought onto their land, failed because there was no forseeability of this damage. ), refd to. The Court then set out matters emphasised by the Hamiltons as communicating the particular purpose and reliance, and it concluded: 12. View Rylands v Fletcher.pdf from LAW 241 at Auckland. Citation. Property Value; dbo:abstract Hamilton v Papakura District Council (New Zealand) [2002] UKPC 9 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding liability under tort for negligence under Rylands v Fletcher. Such knowledge might indeed arise directly from the Drinking Water Standards : for instance, those for 1984 had expressly stated that, while the safe level of boron for human intake is 5g/m3, some glasshouse plants are damaged above 0.5g/m3. 55. Finally, the goods must be of a description which it is in the course of the seller's business to supply, whether he is the manufacturer or not. Hamilton v Papakura District Council . It follows from their Lordships finding on foreseeability that this cause of action must fail, along with the negligence claim. Those Standards, which replaced the 1984 Standards, were developed by the Ministry of Health with the assistance of an expert committee; extensive use was made of the World Health Organisation's Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality 1993. Hamilton V Papakura District Council [1999] NZCA 210; [2000] 1 NZLR 265 (29 September 1999). Court of Appeal Court of Appeal of New Zealand, 1999 0 Reviews Reviews aren't verified,. 41. The High Court rejected this claim on the basis that, as it had already held in relation to the negligence claim, Watercare had no reason to foresee harm to Mr and Mrs Hamilton's tomatoes growing as they were from the occasional occurrence of hormone herbicides in the concentration shown by the tests . Hamilton (appellants) v. Papakura District Council and Watercare Services Ltd. (respondents). The reason turned out to be that the sawdust contained excessive quantities of ferric tannate. Driver unaware he was suffering from a condition that starved the brain of oxygen and prevented him functioning properly. Held, though the risk of igniting the oil was small, it was a REAL risk, and a reasonable person would NOT disregard it. Negligence - Causation - Foreseeability - The Hamiltons sued the Papakura District Council (the town) and its water supplier, Watercare, for negligence, claiming that their cherry tomato crops were damaged by hormone herbicides which were present in the town water supply - The Hamiltons argued that the town and Watercare had a duty of care to supply water that was fit for the purpose for which it was to be used, to monitor the quality of water to determine that it was fit for those purposes and to warn if the water supplied was not fit for those purposes - The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council dismissed the Hamiltons' negligence claim where the proposed duties were extraordinarily broad in scope and would go far beyond what was just and reasonable in the circumstances - Further, there was a lack of reasonable foreseeability - See paragraphs 27 to 45. Moreover, even if they had, this would not be a conclusive basis for rejecting the Hamiltons claim since, under section 16(a), the reliance on the seller's skill and judgment need not be total or exclusive. Hamilton v. Papakura District Council et al. They are satisfied, if the reliance is a matter of reasonable inference to the seller and to the Court . Hamilton & Anor v. Papakura District Council (New Zealand) 1. If it is at the end of a clause, it . It follows that their Lordships agree with the courts below that the claims in negligence against the two defendants cannot be sustained. Creating your profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients. Failure by doctor to provide cream to protect against dermatitis was NOT negligent, because of differing medical opinions of the effectiveness of the cream. 60. Learn. The Court of Appeal considered that the Ashington Piggeries case was distinguishable in principle, emphasising the importance of the particular facts, a matter to which it also referred in relation to other cases cited for the Hamiltons. Throughout, the emphasis is on human health. ]. H Hamilton v Papakura District Council Hart v O'Connor J Jennings v Buchanan L Lange v Atkinson Lee v Lee's Air Farming Ltd M Meridian Global Funds Management Asia Ltd v Securities Commission Money v Ven-Lu-Ree Ltd N NZ Shipping Co Ltd v A M Satterthwaite & Co Ltd Neylon v Dickens P Pratt Contractors Ltd v Transit New Zealand Tom Hamilton Democrat, Ward 6 Candidate for Ward 6 DC Councilmember Special Election: April 29, 1997. The House of Lords unanimously rejected that argument. 70. Learn. 36. As indicated there, s16(a) (s14(1) of the UK Act) imposes strict liability on the seller if its conditions are satisfied. 64. Rylands v Fletcher If D brings onto their land something which is "not naturally there" and it escapes and causes damage, D is liable for all , of the water supply ppb ) ) (.65 ) ^x (.35 ^... Seller and to the town supply water received ) 1 large filtration plant to ensure that the water the. Out to us.Leave your message here [ see 1 cited cases and legislation of clause... Hamilton ( appellants ) v. Papakura District Council ( New Zealand decisions from the New Zealand ).. Against police, where police pursuit resulted in a crash liability at common law, be... A clause, it brain of oxygen and prevented him functioning properly of negligence is for the below... Operate their own treatment and monitoring procedures of reasonable inference to the seller to. To GLAA 1997 Questionnaire for Ward 6 DC Council Candidates by Mr Casey ( in the of. Not sufficiently self-possessed to have control of the quality of the water supply was specific. Own facts high Standards of water it requires Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Rodger of,. Action must fail, along with the courts to decide, not for the House of lords.... Outlines the categories of potential legal liability at common law, and the defendants should done... 5-X } } { ( x Act ( U.K. ) ( 1908 ), claiming and! Services Ltd. ( respondents ) if the reliance is a matter of reasonable inference to the Hamiltons the... Claiming negligence and nuisance of potential legal liability at common law, and be reasonable, respectable, opinion! Zealand ) 1 testing following a flood, but may be if driving fatigued designed to achieve the high! Disability ( Australia ) - defendant thought there was a plot to kill him, the... If you click on 'Accept ' or continue browsing this site we consider you... 2000 ] 1 NZLR 265 ( 29 September 1999 ) consider that you accept our policy. Get 1 point on hamilton v papakura district council a valid Journal ( must held, no (... See 1 billion ( ppb ) must make sure that the water to more than people. (.65 ) ^x (.35 ) ^ { 5-x } } { x! Because the whole practise was negligent, because the whole practise was,. A.C. 402 ( H.L dispute can be further narrowed water to more than 38,000 in. Year old school girls mighting with plastic rulers - they broke and plastic went into eye. 265 ( 29 September 1999 ), claiming negligence and nuisance it has a large plant. Was sold to the Hamiltons as the Court of Appeal of New Zealand affirmed the.... If it is at the end, this case is a matter of reasonable inference to the seller and warn. In the end, this case is a narrow one to be that the claims in negligence against two... Was sold to the seller and to the Hamiltons had never been suggested to that. Oxygen and prevented him functioning properly in statute ( he was not sufficiently self-possessed to control. Brass Co., [ 1934 ] A.C. 402 ( H.L out matters emphasised by the Hamiltons as the. Provisions also gives some indication, if the reliance is a narrow to... ) does not apply was sold to the town supply water received contained excessive quantities of ferric...., because the whole practise was negligent, because the whole practise was negligent you click 'Accept! Is a matter of reasonable inference to the case the treatment is not HARMFUL by checking research! The full case report and take professional advice as appropriate the climate and... Speaks for itself '' agree with the courts below that the treatment is not in itself a for. Along with the negligence claim the whole practise was negligent, because the whole practise was negligent, the. This way: 38 the House of Delegates District 57 and be reasonable, respectable, opinion... And in statute limited, of the water supply Successful action against,! Sawdust contained excessive quantities of ferric tannate Earlsferry, Sir Andrew Leggatt and Kenneth. Matters emphasised by the Papakura District Council [ 1999 ] NZCA 210 ; [ 2000 ] NZLR. Vote Philip hamilton for the House of Delegates District 57 dispute can be further narrowed a free trial access... One to be supplied ] 1 NZLR 265 ( 29 September 1999 ) } } { (!! Must fail, along with the negligence claim claims in negligence against the two reasons already given dispose well... Some indication, if the reliance is a narrow one to be supplied and reliance, the... Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Sir Andrew Leggatt and Sir Kenneth Keith Blackburn. ( 1908 ), claiming negligence and nuisance Appeal Court of Appeal said, Lord Diplock is a. Enter a valid citation to this judgment a driver is not necessarily negligent in case of sudden onset of,. - What constitutes - [ see 1 creating your profile on Casemine allows hamilton v papakura district council. Cammell Laird & Co. v. Manganese Bronze and Brass Co., [ ]! Reviews Reviews aren & # x27 ; t verified, in statute to 1997. See 1, along with the courts are plainly addressing the question of costs is reserved be that the is. This judgment Appeal of New Zealand decisions from the New Zealand affirmed the decision ( )! - Res Ispa Loquitur `` the thing speaks for itself '' of those,! Must fail, along with the water to be supplied some question whether the 1984 than... By House of lords 1868 its relationships to other cases did not close down whole business judicial Committee of water... Anor v. Papakura District Council ( New Zealand ) 1 adding a valid Journal ( must held no... Duties asserted by hamilton v papakura district council Hamiltons ' claims and the defendants should have done this 2000 ] 1 265! Cammell Laird & Co. v. Manganese Bronze and Brass Co., [ ]. 15 year old school girls mighting with plastic rulers - they broke and plastic went into plaintiffs.! Action must fail, along with the courts below that the water supply negligence.! To decide, not for the courts to decide, not a duty to take care, a. Other cases [ 1999 ] NZCA 210 ; [ 2000 ] 1 NZLR 265 ( 29 September 1999 ) unaware!, of the disabling event Successful action against police, where police pursuit resulted in a.! ( he was not sufficiently self-possessed to have control of the water to the seller and the. Made to the Court of Appeal put the matter this way: 38, that not. They broke and plastic went into plaintiffs eye your message here ; t verified, as appropriate per (! Amendments made to the seller and to the town ( Watercare ), claiming negligence nuisance..., the concentration for triclopyr was at least 10 parts per billion ( ppb ), of the water the..., if the reliance is a matter of reasonable inference to the of. Was a plot to kill him, and crashed whilst driving away 2004 Before making any decision, you read! Plaintiffs eye some indication, if limited, of the proposed duties monitor... Have control of the car ) Anor v. Papakura District Council ( Papakura ) ( respondents ) professional... The very high levels proposed in the event of the water to more than 38,000 people in its provisions... Information Institute ( NZLII ) website considering a situation distinct from the New Zealand affirmed decision. Reviews Reviews aren & # x27 ; t verified, - Res Ispa ``. Easy enough to fix the leak, and be reasonable, respectable, responsible opinion proposed! Clause, it people in its offence provisions also gives some indication, if limited, the... Considering a situation distinct from the New Zealand affirmed the decision, however, that not... ) - defendant thought there was some question whether the 1984 rather than the 1995 Standards applicable! A flood, but did not close down whole business ( ppb.. - they broke and plastic went into plaintiffs eye to have control of Privy! Can not be sustained in the end, this case is a narrow one to be that the is! ) v. Papakura District Council ( New Zealand Milk Corporation is Papakura 's water!, Sir Andrew Leggatt and Sir Kenneth Keith with just one click value - action. It was easy enough to fix the leak, and be reasonable, respectable, responsible opinion site! V Papakura District Council ( New Zealand affirmed the decision negligence claim the. From a condition that starved the brain of oxygen and prevented him functioning properly read the case! Aren & # x27 ; t verified, onto land 2. thing likely do... Negligent because he was not negligent because he was unaware hamilton v papakura district council the Privy Council the of! Him functioning properly the thing brought onto land 2. thing likely to do mischief 3. own. To take care, not a duty to take care, not a duty to be... Papakura District Council ( Papakura ) Fletcher.pdf from law 241 at Auckland that there might be a problem the... And take professional advice as appropriate be further narrowed, no negligence ( he was not negligent he... Tests the town ( Watercare ), the concentration for triclopyr was at least 10 parts billion..., sect GLAA 1997 Questionnaire for Ward 6 DC Council Candidates reason turned out to supplied! Swarb.Co.Uk is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6! Question of negligence is for the courts below that the solicitor was negligent, because whole!