There are frequent occasions when what appears to be a proper use of a pesticide adversely affects crop or plant growth. Sometimes this is confined to yellowing, but even this can reduce yield or quality. An affected grower then seeks re-dress for the loss he has incurred. As an expert it would be our responsibility to independently determine whether or not the grower followed label recommendations and GAP. We then have to assess whether the recommendations on the product label are soundly based or whether conditions prevailed at the time of application that were not covered by the product label and could not be predicted by the grower. Other cases involve chemicals outside agriculture and have taken us as experts into areas of public health, pollution and waste disposal. Under the new Civil Procedure Rules Part 35, we have a responsibility to the court to give an independent report that would be acceptable to the court and not represent the views of the plaintiff of defendant. SOME RECENT CASE STUDIES:

J.M. Dingemans -v- Bedfordshire and River Ivel Internal Drainage Board, 1997 This case concerned a lettuce grower extracting and using water from the River Ivel that caused death of whole enterprise. River Ivel IDB has used herbicide legally and within advisory constraints 1.5 kg upstream of the lettuce enterprise. Evidence was produced relating to the very low levels of herbicide found, and the damage witnessed. The case was settled in favour of the plaintiff. OAC acted for the defendant.

Deeker Blowers -v- Nickerson (UK) Ltd. May 2001 This case concerned the sale of seed potatoes by Nickerson (UK) Ltd., to Mr Deeker Blowers in 1998. Around 24% of the seed did not grow but either rotted or produced deformed shoots. We considered that the effects were caused by a glyphosate contamination of the seed crop when grown in 1997. OAC acted for the plaintiff. The case was settled in favour of the plaintiff.

Harrison’s of Sutton -v- Horticultural Development Council, 1999 The case was one where several indoor chrysanthemum crops had failed to make adequate growth and flower quality was seriously reduced. The cause wall alleged negligent advice from HDC. The case was settled in favour of Harrison’s of Sutton. OAC acted for HDC.

London Borough of Wandsworth -v- Weedfree Ltd, 1995 Weedfree were contracted to spray weeds in LBW on flower beds, roads, paths and play areas etc. This resulted in death or partial damage to street trees over a 2 year period. The case was settled on an offer from Weedfree Ltd. OAC acted for Weedfree Ltd.

For further reading on legal actions in which Richard John Makepeace was retained as an expert witness, click below.