Breaking new ground? Nuisance, negligence and pure economic loss in Marsh v Baxter

In Marsh v Baxter the WA Supreme Court resolved a dispute between organic farmers, the Marshes, and their genetically-modified-crop-growing neighbour, Mr Baxter. Causes of action in negligence and nuisance each failed. The court denied that Baxter owed the Marshes a duty to prevent swathes of GM material entering their property, and denied that Baxter unreasonably interfered with the use of their property. In terms of principle,the case is notable for a narrow view of recoverability of pure economic loss and for application of principles of nuisance to the battleground of GM farmers and their anti-GM neighbours. The judgment could be seen as a step towards resolving the tension between those who adopt GM technology and those who eschew it, but not an entirely satisfying one.