Loss of Cotton Production

Loss of Cotton Production



Alleged malicious prosecution of the defendants caused loss of cotton production. ARC was appointed by NSW Crown Solicitors acting for the defendant, to investigate the alleged cause of the losses and quantity possible losses.


What we did

The matter involved alleged losses due to the plaintiff being unable to construct a dam as a consequence of the alleged malicious prosecution. Subsequent losses allegedly occurred due to a number of factors including the plaintiff’s being unable to harvest irrigation water on the affected property and also transfer water allocations between the affected property and another property owned by the plaintiff. ARC was appointed a number of years after the matter commenced running. All investigations had to be completed retrospectively including detailed analysis of all irrigations, pumping opportunities relative to river, and local overland flows reported during the 6 year period in question.

The analysis also included considering and providing a detailed review of a number of hydrology reports completed for the plaintiff, an analysis of the plaintiff’s entire irrigation system on two properties and the river and creek systems within the location of the plaintiff’s properties. This was completed in order to establish if the alleged losses were possible due to the amount of irrigation water alleged to have been unavailable during the period in question, and to assist the court in understanding the operation of the properties under the two scenarios of with and without the construction of the dam in question.

In consideration of the volume of available irrigation water had the dam in question been constructed, a detailed analysis of all the plaintiff’s production records relative to industry records was completed for the 6-year period in question to calculate the possible net loss of profit.


The Result

The investigations and reviews that were completed were complex with many factors impacting on the final quantification. Prior to the court handing down its finding, agreement was reached on quantification. The final agreed quantification was significantly lower than the amount initially claimed.