[?] Administration To

[?]lict for [?]. Leahy [?] Administration To For Tick Negligence

e Administration of Papua

Guinea entered into a ict to carry on a tick eradi i campaign on the cattle of Mr. Michael J. Leahy. officers to whom the Admin cation had delegated the task id been negligent in carrying eir work, so that Mr. Leahy uffered injury and loss.

Administration must pay Mr. damages amounting to £4,055, 11 costs of the action, t was the substance of the t delivered on January 22 in Moresby by Chief Justice in the case in which well i “Mick” Leahy, New Guinea liner and explorer (he was f the party which discovered Ighlands of New Guinea in and now a farmer and grazier mag (above the Markham , in the Morobe district) sued Iministration.

Leahy’s case was that cattle he had imported from Aus were found to be tick-in that he wished to take t and urgent measures for tick ition, to prevent herd losses; le Department of Agriculture d that the work should be >y its officers: that the work one negligently and ineffici so that the infestation spread h his herd, causing heavy from red-water fever, and oss of business.

A Fighter

y people tried to persuade gainst taking action on the I that it is most difficult for ite individual to get a verdict t a government, which has funds available for use in ite forms of legal defence, ever, Mr. Leahy—always a —insisted that he would “give o”, and he was able to get abaul barrister, Mr. Dudley MLC, to take the case for Fhe case was prepared and ted with great care; and Mr. r Jones was able to assemble expert evidence which ntly impressed the Court.

Is judgment, the Chief Justice that the arrangement between rties was in fact a legal con that, in accordance there- Mr. Leahy allowed Depart i officers on his property and 1 over his cattle to them for ent; that, at this time, the

Department had no powers under which Mr. Leahy could be compelled to let the officials undertake the treatment (those powers were given to the Administration later on); that Mr. Leahy had agreed to pay for the service and that the actions of the officers had been authorised by the Administration; that the officers who were given the task of tick eradication had been guilty of negligence, in that the cattle had not been regularly sprayed, and that this negligence led to increased infestation, and to losses in the herd from red-water fever.

In this regard, His Honour accepted the evidence of Mr. J.

Maunder, of Brisbane, who had

occupied the position of Chief In spector of Stock in Queensland, and was undoubtedly an experienced ex pert on tick infestation, In assessing damages, the Chief Justice allowed the replacement value of such cattle as had been proved to have died from red water, £3,955, plus £lOO damages for deterioration of the rest of the herd, a total of £4,055; plus costs, Mr. N. O’Connell and Sir Colman O’Loghlen, of the P-NG Crown Law Office, conducted the defence for the Administration and the officials cited separately as de fendants. (See commentary “Some P-NG Aspects of the Mick Leahy verdict”, page 21.)