COLIN JAMES DALLAS v WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL [2015] NZSC 94
The central issue for the appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct in finding the applicant liable under the Fair Trading Act 1986 and, if so, whether apportionment of 50% of the respondent's loss to the applicant was legally justified; the Supreme Court granted leave to determine those questions.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] NZSC 94
- Parties
- Applicant: Colin James Dallas; Respondent: Wellington City Council
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 26 June 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal (leave to Appeal) / Leave to Appeal Granted
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal granted
- Legal Topics
- Misleading and Deceptive Conduct, Liability Under Fair Trading Act, Apportionment/contribution, Leave to Appeal
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Colin James Dallas
Applicant
Wellington City Council
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal (leave to Appeal) / Leave to Appeal Granted
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find the applicant liable under the Fair Trading Act 1986
- 2 If liability is established, whether the applicant should be held liable for 50 per cent of the respondent's loss
Ratio Decidendi
The central issue for the appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct in finding the applicant liable under the Fair Trading Act 1986 and, if so, whether apportionment of 50% of the respondent's loss to the applicant was legally justified; the Supreme Court granted leave to determine those questions.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal granted
Orders
- Leave to appeal granted (Wellington City Council v Dallas [2014] NZCA 631).
- Approved questions: (a) Was the Court of Appeal correct to have found the applicant liable under the Fair Trading Act 1986? (b) If so, should the applicant have been held liable for 50 per cent of the respondent's loss?
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
COLIN JAMES DALLAS v WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL [2015] NZSC 94 [26 June 2015]IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALANDSC 14/2015[2015] NZSC 94BETWEEN COLIN JAMES DALLASApplicantAND WELLINGTON CITY COUNCILRespondentCourt: Glazebrook, Arnold and O'Regan JJCounsel: P R W Chisnall and J D Haig for the ApplicantD J Heaney QC and A K Hough for the RespondentJudgment: 26 June 2015JUDGMENT OF THE COURTA The application for leave to appeal is granted (Wellington City Council v Dallas [2014] NZCA 631).B The approved questions are:(a) Was the Court of Appeal correct to have found the applicant liable under the Fair Trading Act 1986?(b) If so, should the applicant have been held liable for50 per cent of the respondent's loss?____________________________________________________________________REASONS[1] The parties may also want to consider Body Corporate 202254 v Taylor.1Solicitors:Macalister Mazengarb, Wellington for ApplicantHeaney & Partners, Auckland for Respondent1 Body Corporate 202254 v Taylor [2008] NZCA 317, [2009] 2 NZLR 17.