Posted on 21-2-2003

Sour Tomatoes
By Sandra Conchie

A tomato grower faces financial ruin after being ordered to pay court costs
for a seven-year legal wrangle with council and Watercare Services - or
face a compulsory land sale.

The row hinges around an $800,000 1995 High Court case brought by Cherry
Toms owners John and Mary Hamilton against Watercare and the Papakura
District Council. The Hamiltons lost their Privy Council case after
claiming some of their hydroponic cherry tomato crops died after high
levels of herbicide entered the Hays Creek Dam. Last week council and
Watercare jointly served notice on the Hamiltons they wanted legal costs
paid by March 10, or their six hectares Kaipara Rd property would be sold off.

Our Town understands the Hamiltons owe Papakura District Council close to
$180,000 and approximately $600,000 to Watercare in costs. The parties
jointly hold a $400,000 mortgage over the Hamilton's property. The
Hamiltons also owe thousands of dollars for their own legal bills. Since
losing their legal fight, the Hamiltons have made several attempts to
subdivide the property to maximise its value to repay costs.

Mr Hamilton says his decision to pursue the case to the Law Lords was not
taken lightly. He felt he had no choice but to pursue the matter as high as
the Privy Council because of the risk to his family and his business. In
1995 Mr Hamilton was exporting 1000 trays a week to the Hong Kong market,
and producing tomatoes for almost half of Auckland market, and there was
the potential to more than double his workforce.

Currently, the Hamiltons employ 10 staff. Mr Hamilton says his decision has
ultimately taken a huge financial and emotional toll. "In hindsight I
didn't take into account the impact this matter was going to have on my
family, for which I was very remiss." Mrs Hamilton added: "While council's
and Watercare's recent actions were not unexpected, we're gutted."

Papakura Mayor David Buist declined to comment on council's decision.
Watercare's spokesperson Owen Gill told Our Town negotiations with the
Hamiltons' lawyer has failed to produce "a firm proposal to pay.". "In the
end the costs have to be paid.", says Mr Gill. "Watercare and its insurer,
which met the bulk of the costs of defending the claim, and the council are
entitled to be reimbursed."