The Colac Magistrates’ Court heard the business carried out aerial spraying by drone at a Barongarook property in May 2024.
Shortly after the application, grass along a neighbouring property’s boundary fence began turning yellow.
An investigation by Agriculture Victoria found spray drift had travelled beyond the intended target area, damaging about 4 hectares of land.
The total cost to the affected landholder was estimated at around $26,000, including re‑sowing pasture, replacement hay, fertiliser and seed, as well as lost income.
Agriculture Victoria said the drift was caused by a range of factors including wind speed, release height, droplet size and the way the drone was manually flown.
While drone spraying carries a lower drift risk than fixed‑wing aircraft or helicopters, regulators said it still posed a greater risk than ground‑based spraying.
During sentencing, the Magistrate stressed the need for close monitoring of weather conditions and noted that complex terrain can increase spray‑drift risk.
The court emphasised that operators using modern technologies must exercise strong due diligence and careful decision‑making.
Chemical users are reminded to stop spraying when conditions fall outside legal limits and to fully understand their responsibilities before operating remotely piloted aircraft.
