WHITE v JAMES HARDIE NEW ZEALAND [2017] NZHC 2105

WHITE v JAMES HARDIE NEW ZEALAND [2017] NZHC 2105

The Court refused summary judgment for JHNZH and RCIH because the plaintiffs established a real and arguable basis and factual materials (complaints records, provisions in subsidiary accounts, overlap of personnel) such that it could not be shown that the plaintiffs were bound to fail on the duty-to-warn/recall...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] NZHC 2105
Parties
Plaintiffs (white Proceeding): KAREN LOUISE WHITE AND THE PERSONS LISTED IN SCHEDULE 1; Plaintiffs (waitakere Proceeding): WAITAKERE GROUP LIMITED AND OTHERS; First Defendant: JAMES HARDIE NEW ZEALAND; Second Defendant: STUDORP LIMITED; Third Defendant: JAMES HARDIE NZ HOLDINGS; Fourth Defendant: RCI HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED; Fifth Defendant: JAMES HARDIE AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED; Sixth Defendant: JAMES HARDIE RESEARCH PTY LIMITED; Seventh Defendant (jhi): JAMES HARDIE INDUSTRIES PLC
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
31 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Claims in Tort and Statutory Consumer Claims Under the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 and Fair Trading Act 1986 / Interlocutory Applications: Defendants' Applications for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff's Application to Set Aside Protest to Jurisdiction
Outcome
Applications by third and fourth defendants (JHNZH and RCIH) for summary judgment dismissed; JHI's protest to jurisdiction set aside in part and plaintiffs ordered to file amended statements of claim limited to the duty-to-warn cause of action and corresponding Fair Trading Act allegations within 20 working days; if...
Legal Topics
Product Liability, Duty to Warn/recall, Negligent Misstatement, Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Agency and Attribution of Knowledge, Parent Company Liability, Service Out of Jurisdiction and Jurisdictional Protest, Summary Judgment Test
Tort Consumer Law Competition/fair Trading Law Company Law (parent/holding Company Liability) Civil Procedure (jurisdiction; Summary Judgment) Product Liability Duty to Warn/recall Negligent Misstatement +5 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KAREN LOUISE WHITE AND THE PERSONS LISTED IN SCHEDULE 1

Plaintiffs (white Proceeding)

WAITAKERE GROUP LIMITED AND OTHERS

Plaintiffs (waitakere Proceeding)

JAMES HARDIE NEW ZEALAND

First Defendant

STUDORP LIMITED

Second Defendant

JAMES HARDIE NZ HOLDINGS

Third Defendant

RCI HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED

Fourth Defendant

JAMES HARDIE AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED

Fifth Defendant

JAMES HARDIE RESEARCH PTY LIMITED

Sixth Defendant

JAMES HARDIE INDUSTRIES PLC

Seventh Defendant (jhi)

Procedural Posture

Civil Claims in Tort and Statutory Consumer Claims Under the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 and Fair Trading Act 1986 / Interlocutory Applications: Defendants' Applications for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff's Application to Set Aside Protest to Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether third and fourth defendants (JHNZH and RCIH) as passive holding companies can be liable for defects in products manufactured and supplied by subsidiaries
  2. 2 Whether parent company (JHI) assumed responsibility for acts/omissions of subsidiaries so as to attract liability and jurisdiction in New Zealand
  3. 3 Whether a duty to warn/recall existed and could be established against holding/parent companies given complaints over time

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused summary judgment for JHNZH and RCIH because the plaintiffs established a real and arguable basis and factual materials (complaints records, provisions in subsidiary accounts, overlap of personnel) such that it could not be shown that the plaintiffs were bound to fail on the duty-to-warn/recall cause of action and related FTA claim; regarding JHI the Court set aside the protest to jurisdiction in part because the plaintiffs showed a good arguable case and a serious issue to be tried against JHI in relation to the duty-to-warn claim and associated FTA allegations, subject to the plaintiffs filing amended statements of claim confined to those causes and parts within 20...

Court Disposition

Applications by third and fourth defendants (JHNZH and RCIH) for summary judgment dismissed; JHI's protest to jurisdiction set aside in part and plaintiffs ordered to file amended statements of claim limited to the duty-to-warn cause of action and corresponding Fair Trading Act allegations within 20 working days; if...

Orders

  • Applications for summary judgment by JHNZH and RCIH dismissed
  • Plaintiffs to file and serve amended statements of claim against JHI confined to the second cause of action (duty to warn/recall) and the part of the fifth cause of action under the Fair Trading Act that relies on the same omission, within 20 working days of the decision