DAVID PAUL HALFORD AND BLUE SKY HOLDINGS LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) AS TRUSTEE OF THE AUCKLAND RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TRUST V R F COUGHLAN & ASSOCIATES AND ANOR SC 35/2010
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because concurrent factual findings below established no negligence in preparation of plans and the applicants failed to show reliance on or causation by the practical completion certificates, so the grounds do not meet the criteria for leave.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- SC 35/2010
- Parties
- Applicant: David Paul Halford and Blue Sky Holdings Ltd (in Liquidation) as Trustee of the Auckland Residential Property Trust; First Respondent: R F Coughlan & Associates; Second Respondent: North Shore City Council; Third Respondents: Robert Henry Graham Barton and Kay Barton
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 13 July 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal (leave to Appeal) / Application for Leave to Appeal (decision)
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Duty of Care, Causation, Reliance on Certificates, Concurrent Findings of Fact, Leave to Appeal Criteria
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
David Paul Halford and Blue Sky Holdings Ltd (in Liquidation) as Trustee of the Auckland Residential Property Trust
Applicant
R F Coughlan & Associates
First Respondent
North Shore City Council
Second Respondent
Robert Henry Graham Barton and Kay Barton
Third Respondents
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (leave to Appeal) / Application for Leave to Appeal (decision)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the designer (first respondent) was liable for inadequate details in plans irrespective of availability of details from other sources
- 2 Whether practical completion certificates were negligently issued and whether any such certificates were relied on and causative of loss
- 3 Whether grounds for leave to appeal are met given concurrent factual findings below
Ratio Decidendi
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because concurrent factual findings below established no negligence in preparation of plans and the applicants failed to show reliance on or causation by the practical completion certificates, so the grounds do not meet the criteria for leave.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal dismissed
Orders
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs of $2,500 to the First Respondent
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
DAVID PAUL HALFORD AND BLUE SKY HOLDINGS LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) AS TRUSTEE OF THE AUCKLAND RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TRUST V R F COUGHLAN & ASSOCIATES AND ANOR SC 35/2010 13 July 2010IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 35/2010 [2010] NZSC 80BETWEEN DAVID PAUL HALFORD AND BLUE SKY HOLDINGS LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) AS TRUSTEE OF THE AUCKLAND RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TRUST Applicants AND R F COUGHLAN & ASSOCIATES First Respondent AND NORTH SHORE CITY COUNCIL Second Respondent AND ROBERT HENRY GRAHAM BARTON AND KAY BARTON Third Respondents Court: Elias CJ, Blanchard and McGrath JJ Counsel: M C Josephson for Applicants A Maclean for First Respondent D Goddard QC for Second Respondent Judgment: 13 July 2010JUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs of $2,500 to the First Respondent. REASONS[1] The first ground which the applicants propose to argue is that the designer of the building, the first respondent, should have been found liable for inadequate details in the plans, regardless of whether the details might have been available to the applicants from other sources. However, there are concurrent findings of fact belowthat in the circumstances of the case the plans and specifications were not negligently prepared by the first respondent. The decision turned on the particular facts of the case and gives rise to no wider principle. The criteria for leave are not met. [2] The second proposed ground of appeal is that practical completion certificates were negligently issued by the first respondent. However, in circumstances where, as has been held below, it has not been shown that the certificates were relied upon by the applicants, we do not consider that this ground is arguable. It has not been shown that the certificates were causative of any loss to the applicants.Solicitors: Grimshaw & Co, Auckland for Applicants A Maclean, Auckland for First Respondents Heaney & Co, Auckland for Second Respondent