DAVID JOHN CRAIKE AND JAYNE ANNETTE CRAIKE V ROBERT TILSLEY HC AK CIV-2010-404-002846

DAVID JOHN CRAIKE AND JAYNE ANNETTE CRAIKE V ROBERT TILSLEY HC AK CIV-2010-404-002846

The court found that Tilsley's engagement was limited to earthworks supervision; he warned against the unauthorised heavy filling of the grass area and advised on drainage and surface matters (or identified lack of expertise), the plaintiff (primarily Mrs Craike) elected to proceed contrary to his advice, negligence was not established as to the first defendant, and even assuming breach causation was insufficient because the business failure resulted from undercapitalisation, contractor failures and other factors; accordingly judgment for the first defendant.

Citation
openlaw-16cb13f1_f5db_4af0_b5b8_12dff5da5905.pdf
Parties
First Plaintiff: David John Craike; First Plaintiff: Jayne Annette Craike; Second Plaintiff: Showfields Equestrian Centre Limited; First Defendant: Robert Tilsley; Second Defendant: S D Watson Limited; Third Defendant: Stewart David Watson; Fourth Defendant: Earl Samuel Watson; Fifth Defendant: Robert Watson
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
3 September 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Breach of Contract and Negligence (professional/project Management) / Final Judgment (trial)
Outcome
Judgment for the first defendant; plaintiffs' claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Scope of Engagement, Duty of Care, Causation, Contributory Negligence, Quantum of Damages, Project Management of Earthworks
Contract Tort Negligence Professional Negligence Property/land Valuation Civil Procedure Scope of Engagement Duty of Care +4 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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David John Craike

First Plaintiff

Jayne Annette Craike

First Plaintiff

Showfields Equestrian Centre Limited

Second Plaintiff

Robert Tilsley

First Defendant

S D Watson Limited

Second Defendant

Stewart David Watson

Third Defendant

Earl Samuel Watson

Fourth Defendant

Robert Watson

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Breach of Contract and Negligence (professional/project Management) / Final Judgment (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What was the precise scope of Mr Tilsley's engagement?
  2. 2 Did Mr Tilsley breach duties in relation to the grass area filling?
  3. 3 Did Mr Tilsley breach duties in relation to arena base and surface?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Tilsley's engagement was limited to earthworks supervision; he warned against the unauthorised heavy filling of the grass area and advised on drainage and surface matters (or identified lack of expertise), the plaintiff (primarily Mrs Craike) elected to proceed contrary to his advice, negligence was not established as to the first defendant, and even assuming breach causation was insufficient because the business failure resulted from undercapitalisation, contractor failures and other factors; accordingly judgment for the first defendant.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the first defendant; plaintiffs' claims dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment entered for first defendant
  • First defendant awarded costs on a 2B basis; costs order conditional on no submissions within 14 days and otherwise to be addressed on merits