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."
|