The company was one of the plaintiffs in the 12-week High Court proceedings, and were claiming losses as a grower as well as post-harvest company – with the latter being rejected. In her judgement, Justice Jillian Mallon found that a duty of care was not owed to Seeka, in its capacity as post-harvest operator.
A counter appeal has now been launched, with the plaintiffs arguing that an old English test was applied that says people/businesses must suffer property damage not economic damage. Because Seeka suffered a loss due to its business relationship, rather than because it had property rights in the infected vines – this was classed as economic damage.
“We have always been focused and motivated by accountability and understanding exactly what occurred that led to the devastation of our orchards and livelihoods,” Seeka CEO Michael Franks said. “Clearly in appealing, the Crown hasn’t got the point. Our appeal puts the matter back before the Courts and our intention is to follow this process until its natural conclusion in the absence of any process to settle.”
The Crown was the first to appeal the decision stating that it considers the High Court finding has the potential to significantly impact on the Ministry's biosecurity operations.
But the 212 growers involved in the Kiwifruit Claim are quick to remind people that the court found that it was “just, fair and reasonable that MPI has a duty of care” to the kiwifruit growers and that “the wrong to them should be remedied”.
“Our win in the High Court was convincing, it was based on very strong evidence and we are confident in the findings against MPI,” Kiwifruit Claim Chairman John Cameron said. "This appeal by the Government means kiwifruit growers still have a long and expensive road ahead of them to receive proper compensation for the significant losses suffered as a direct result of MPI’s negligence.
The plaintiffs successfully proved that a shipment arrived from Shaanxi Province, China, in 2009 containing 4.5kg of pollen, anthers and other banned plant material that were infected with Psa - and MPI admitted to the Court that the consignment was required by law to have been inspected by MPI at the border and biosecurity clearance should not have been granted due to material discrepancies.
As the matter will go before the Court of Appeal, the MPI has indicated it will not be making any further comment.