Australian Pesticides Map

September 30 2025: Riverina’s Hardy Irrigation awarded $673k after a court finds crop poisoned by aerial spraying with toxic herbicide. A family-owned farming operation in the Riverina has won more than $670,000 in damages after a court found an aerial spraying company had poisoned its crop with a toxic herbicide.

Judge finds Leeton crop duster liable for $673,000 loss after poisoning of Coleambally cotton fields

30 September 2025 | By Oliver Jacques (Region Riverina)

A District Court Judge has found a Leeton crop duster liable to pay a client $673,518 after their cotton fields were severely damaged following aerial spraying to reduce weed growth.

According to the published judgement, the Hardy family, who own farmland between Coleambally and Jerilderie, contracted Leeton Aerial Ag Pty Ltd to carry out crop dusting on specific fields growing young cotton within their property in November 2022. The related company JN Aviation Pty Ltd carried out the work.

The cotton was to be sprayed with Weedmaster, a glyphosate product similar to Roundup, which is commonly used in domestic gardens.

Hardy Irrigation claimed the chemical compound 2,4-D was somehow mixed in with the Weedmaster while the spraying was done, causing poisoning and extensive damage to the cotton, which resulted in an economic loss.

Leeton Aerial Ag and JN Aviation Pty Ltd denied any liability, saying they did not spray the crops with any 2,4-D and did not cause the damage to the cotton. They suggested the poisoning could have been caused by “spray drift”, when harmful chemicals blow over from neighbouring properties.

The published judgement stated the herbicides sprayed by the crop duster were obtained direct from a supplier and delivered to the JN Aviation hangar in what is known as a shuttle – a 1000-litre plastic container with a lid on the top and a tap towards the bottom, via which the liquid inside can be extracted.

Hardy Irrigation’s lawyers argued there wasn’t any 2,4-D in the shuttle when herbicide was delivered. Nevertheless, after the spraying took place, there was observable damage to the crops, consistent with 2,4-D having been sprayed on the crops. The leaves had become shrivelled up, brittle, and displayed a distinctive style of what is known as “witches hands”. That damage was uniform and specific to the area that had been sprayed by JN Aviation Pty Ltd.

The Coleambally cotton growers said that when they collected the shuttle, there was 2,4-D in the residue in it, an assertion confirmed by CCTV footage. The residue was yellow (which indicates the presence of 2,4-D), and a subsequent chemical analysis of a sample of the residue in the shuttle arranged by their agronomist Brett Hay identified the Weedmaster as contaminated with 2,4-D.

District Court Judge Robert Newlinds SC ruled that on the balance of probabilities, 2,4-D poisoned the cotton and that the evidence did not support an alternative explanation of “spray drift”, because the damage was uniform.

“I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that [the crop dusters], for reasons unknown, somehow mistakenly loaded Weedmaster contaminated with 2,4-D onto its plane, which was subsequently sprayed on the [Hardy’s] fields, causing it loss and damage, in that the yield of cotton from those fields was reduced,” Judge Newlands found.

After hearing calculations from both sides on the economic value of the loss from cotton that wasn’t able to go to market, the judge ruled that this should be quantified at $568,436.76 plus two years’ interest of $105,081.38.

Leeton Aerial Ag Pty Ltd and JN Aviation Pty Ltd were also ordered to pay for Hardy Irrigation’s legal costs for the civil hearings.

Crop duster firms to pay for damaging cotton crops

October 2 2025 Grain Central

A NEW South Wales farming family has been awarded more than $673,000 in damages after a court found two crop-dusting companies responsible for cotton crop losses caused by 2,4-D contamination.

The Hardy family of Hardy Irrigation, who farm between Coleambally and Jerilderie in the Murrumbidgee region, brought claims against crop-dusting contractor Leeton Aerial Ag Pty Ltd and JN Aviation Pty Ltd, the owners and operators of the aircraft used in spraying.

Both crop-dusting companies are related entities, with Jason Neutze serving as sole director of each.

The Hardys alleged that several fields of their 2022-23 cotton crop suffered major yield losses directly linked to crop-dusting carried out by the defendants in November 2022.

They say the crops were to be sprayed with Weedmaster, active ingredient glyphosate, but later showed evidence of 2,4-D damage.

They also provided evidence that a liquid consistent with 2,4-D – yellow in colour – was seen in the shuttles containing the chemical used to spray the crop, which was inconsistent with the blue colour of Weedmaster.

The chemical was supplied by Nufarm, with neither party arguing it had been contaminated before delivery to the hangar.

Alongside Nutrien Ag agronomist Brett Hay, the Hardys initially assumed the damage to the crops was caused by spray drift.

However, following inspections by several experts, testing was conducted on residue of the chemicals sprayed on the crops, confirming contamination with 2,4-D.

NSW District Court Judge Robert Newlinds, who heard the case over September 15-19 in Albury, found the damage had been caused by spraying by the defendants.

“I conclude that I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the damage was uniform, was consistent with 2,4-D damage, and was co-extensive with the areas sprayed by the Defendants,” Judge Newlinds wrote.

Contamination mystery

While finding for the Hardys, Judge Newlinds could not find a reasonable explanation as to how, when and why the Weedmaster became contaminated with 2,4-D.

In their claim, the Hardys also did not provide an answer as to how the chemical was contaminated.

The defendants contended that the cotton was damaged with the chemical during either a spray-drift incident or some other spray event by the Hardys.

They argue that they were not in possession of 2,4-D at the time of the incident, were diligent in record keeping, and had staff trained in relevant use of chemicals.

They asserted that it was “it is extremely difficult to understand how 2,4-D could possibly have got into the shuttle whilst in the custody of the defendants by some sort of human error”.

These claims were supported by CCTV footage provided of staff loading planes and performing day-to-day tasks.

Judge Newlinds accepted the claims that the staff were adequately trained and that it seemed “unlikely that any 2,4-D was actually in the premises at the time”.

However, while accepting “mistakes sometimes do happen”, Judge Newlinds also wrote that he found “it extremely difficult to visualise or even imagine how a mistake by a person could have occurred so as to add 2,4-D to the shuttle”.

Despite this uncertainty, Judge Newlinds ultimately concluded that there was no other reasonable explanation for how the crops were damaged by 2,4-D than by the defendants’ crop-dusting work.

“I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the defendants, for reasons unknown, somehow mistakenly loaded Weedmaster contaminated with 2,4-D on to its plane, which was subsequently sprayed on the plaintiff’s fields, causing it loss and damage, in that the yield of cotton from those fields was reduced.”

Damages calculation

In calculating damages, Judge Newlinds mostly sided with evidence provided by experts put forward by the Hardys.

This included comparing the yields in the damaged fields, 4.95 bales per hectare, to crops in another field not impacted by the contamination which yielded 8b/ha.

The Hardys put forward that the difference equated to a loss of just over $631,000.

After considering the evidence of the defendants, which included the possibility of cost savings from transport costs, Judge Newlinds reduced this figure by 10pc to about $568,000.

He then added an interest figure of more than $105,000 to come to the final damages sum of just above $673,000.

30/9/25: Hardy Irrigation awarded $673,000 after crop poisoned through spray drift (NSW)

,

September 30 2025: Riverina’s Hardy Irrigation awarded $673k after a court finds crop poisoned by aerial spraying with toxic herbicide. A family-owned farming operation in the Riverina has won more than $670,000 in damages after a court found an aerial spraying company had poisoned its crop with a toxic herbicide.

Judge finds Leeton crop duster liable for $673,000 loss after poisoning of Coleambally cotton fields

30 September 2025 | By Oliver Jacques (Region Riverina)

A District Court Judge has found a Leeton crop duster liable to pay a client $673,518 after their cotton fields were severely damaged following aerial spraying to reduce weed growth.

According to the published judgement, the Hardy family, who own farmland between Coleambally and Jerilderie, contracted Leeton Aerial Ag Pty Ltd to carry out crop dusting on specific fields growing young cotton within their property in November 2022. The related company JN Aviation Pty Ltd carried out the work.

The cotton was to be sprayed with Weedmaster, a glyphosate product similar to Roundup, which is commonly used in domestic gardens.

Hardy Irrigation claimed the chemical compound 2,4-D was somehow mixed in with the Weedmaster while the spraying was done, causing poisoning and extensive damage to the cotton, which resulted in an economic loss.

Leeton Aerial Ag and JN Aviation Pty Ltd denied any liability, saying they did not spray the crops with any 2,4-D and did not cause the damage to the cotton. They suggested the poisoning could have been caused by “spray drift”, when harmful chemicals blow over from neighbouring properties.

The published judgement stated the herbicides sprayed by the crop duster were obtained direct from a supplier and delivered to the JN Aviation hangar in what is known as a shuttle – a 1000-litre plastic container with a lid on the top and a tap towards the bottom, via which the liquid inside can be extracted.

Hardy Irrigation’s lawyers argued there wasn’t any 2,4-D in the shuttle when herbicide was delivered. Nevertheless, after the spraying took place, there was observable damage to the crops, consistent with 2,4-D having been sprayed on the crops. The leaves had become shrivelled up, brittle, and displayed a distinctive style of what is known as “witches hands”. That damage was uniform and specific to the area that had been sprayed by JN Aviation Pty Ltd.

The Coleambally cotton growers said that when they collected the shuttle, there was 2,4-D in the residue in it, an assertion confirmed by CCTV footage. The residue was yellow (which indicates the presence of 2,4-D), and a subsequent chemical analysis of a sample of the residue in the shuttle arranged by their agronomist Brett Hay identified the Weedmaster as contaminated with 2,4-D.

District Court Judge Robert Newlinds SC ruled that on the balance of probabilities, 2,4-D poisoned the cotton and that the evidence did not support an alternative explanation of “spray drift”, because the damage was uniform.

“I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that [the crop dusters], for reasons unknown, somehow mistakenly loaded Weedmaster contaminated with 2,4-D onto its plane, which was subsequently sprayed on the [Hardy’s] fields, causing it loss and damage, in that the yield of cotton from those fields was reduced,” Judge Newlands found.

After hearing calculations from both sides on the economic value of the loss from cotton that wasn’t able to go to market, the judge ruled that this should be quantified at $568,436.76 plus two years’ interest of $105,081.38.

Leeton Aerial Ag Pty Ltd and JN Aviation Pty Ltd were also ordered to pay for Hardy Irrigation’s legal costs for the civil hearings.

Crop duster firms to pay for damaging cotton crops

October 2 2025 Grain Central

A NEW South Wales farming family has been awarded more than $673,000 in damages after a court found two crop-dusting companies responsible for cotton crop losses caused by 2,4-D contamination.

The Hardy family of Hardy Irrigation, who farm between Coleambally and Jerilderie in the Murrumbidgee region, brought claims against crop-dusting contractor Leeton Aerial Ag Pty Ltd and JN Aviation Pty Ltd, the owners and operators of the aircraft used in spraying.

Both crop-dusting companies are related entities, with Jason Neutze serving as sole director of each.

The Hardys alleged that several fields of their 2022-23 cotton crop suffered major yield losses directly linked to crop-dusting carried out by the defendants in November 2022.

They say the crops were to be sprayed with Weedmaster, active ingredient glyphosate, but later showed evidence of 2,4-D damage.

They also provided evidence that a liquid consistent with 2,4-D – yellow in colour – was seen in the shuttles containing the chemical used to spray the crop, which was inconsistent with the blue colour of Weedmaster.

The chemical was supplied by Nufarm, with neither party arguing it had been contaminated before delivery to the hangar.

Alongside Nutrien Ag agronomist Brett Hay, the Hardys initially assumed the damage to the crops was caused by spray drift.

However, following inspections by several experts, testing was conducted on residue of the chemicals sprayed on the crops, confirming contamination with 2,4-D.

NSW District Court Judge Robert Newlinds, who heard the case over September 15-19 in Albury, found the damage had been caused by spraying by the defendants.

“I conclude that I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the damage was uniform, was consistent with 2,4-D damage, and was co-extensive with the areas sprayed by the Defendants,” Judge Newlinds wrote.

Contamination mystery

While finding for the Hardys, Judge Newlinds could not find a reasonable explanation as to how, when and why the Weedmaster became contaminated with 2,4-D.

In their claim, the Hardys also did not provide an answer as to how the chemical was contaminated.

The defendants contended that the cotton was damaged with the chemical during either a spray-drift incident or some other spray event by the Hardys.

They argue that they were not in possession of 2,4-D at the time of the incident, were diligent in record keeping, and had staff trained in relevant use of chemicals.

They asserted that it was “it is extremely difficult to understand how 2,4-D could possibly have got into the shuttle whilst in the custody of the defendants by some sort of human error”.

These claims were supported by CCTV footage provided of staff loading planes and performing day-to-day tasks.

Judge Newlinds accepted the claims that the staff were adequately trained and that it seemed “unlikely that any 2,4-D was actually in the premises at the time”.

However, while accepting “mistakes sometimes do happen”, Judge Newlinds also wrote that he found “it extremely difficult to visualise or even imagine how a mistake by a person could have occurred so as to add 2,4-D to the shuttle”.

Despite this uncertainty, Judge Newlinds ultimately concluded that there was no other reasonable explanation for how the crops were damaged by 2,4-D than by the defendants’ crop-dusting work.

“I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the defendants, for reasons unknown, somehow mistakenly loaded Weedmaster contaminated with 2,4-D on to its plane, which was subsequently sprayed on the plaintiff’s fields, causing it loss and damage, in that the yield of cotton from those fields was reduced.”

Damages calculation

In calculating damages, Judge Newlinds mostly sided with evidence provided by experts put forward by the Hardys.

This included comparing the yields in the damaged fields, 4.95 bales per hectare, to crops in another field not impacted by the contamination which yielded 8b/ha.

The Hardys put forward that the difference equated to a loss of just over $631,000.

After considering the evidence of the defendants, which included the possibility of cost savings from transport costs, Judge Newlinds reduced this figure by 10pc to about $568,000.

He then added an interest figure of more than $105,000 to come to the final damages sum of just above $673,000.