STUDORP LIMITED v CRIDGE AND ORS [2017] NZSC 178

STUDORP LIMITED v CRIDGE AND ORS [2017] NZSC 178

Leave to appeal was refused because this interlocutory matter is not an appropriate vehicle for further elaboration of representative‑proceedings principles and the issues relied on by the applicants can and should be addressed at trial or by case management; the statutory test for granting leave was not satisfied.

Citation
[2017] NZSC 178
Parties
First Applicant: Studorp Limited; Second Applicant: James Hardie New Zealand; First Respondent: Tracey Jane Cridge; First Respondent: Mark Anthony Unwin; Second Respondent: Katrina McKellar Fowler; Second Respondent: Scott Woodhead; Third Respondent: Body Corporate 316651
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
27 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Representative Proceeding (class Action) — Negligence and Fair Trading Act Claims / Interlocutory Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court Against Court of Appeal Representative Orders and Precautionary Orders Decision
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Representative Proceedings, Class Actions, Duty of Care, Limitation Periods, Precautionary Orders, Case Management
Tort Consumer Protection Civil Procedure Limitation Representative Proceedings Class Actions Duty of Care Limitation Periods +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Studorp Limited

First Applicant

James Hardie New Zealand

Second Applicant

Tracey Jane Cridge

First Respondent

Mark Anthony Unwin

First Respondent

Katrina McKellar Fowler

Second Respondent

Scott Woodhead

Second Respondent

Body Corporate 316651

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Representative Proceeding (class Action) — Negligence and Fair Trading Act Claims / Interlocutory Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court Against Court of Appeal Representative Orders and Precautionary Orders Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed representatives and class members have the "same interest" for the purposes of r 4.24
  2. 2 Whether a two‑stage determination (common issues first, individual issues later) meets the just, speedy and inexpensive requirement
  3. 3 Whether representative proceedings are appropriate for complex/evolving product systems involving multiple suppliers

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because this interlocutory matter is not an appropriate vehicle for further elaboration of representative‑proceedings principles and the issues relied on by the applicants can and should be addressed at trial or by case management; the statutory test for granting leave was not satisfied.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Applicants to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents