EDWARDS and EDWARDS v CULL and CULL [2014] NZHC 1556

EDWARDS and EDWARDS v CULL and CULL [2014] NZHC 1556

Summary judgment was dismissed because the plaintiffs established an arguable case that the independent inspector and his letter could have been acting as agents/advocates for the vendors (thereby attributing the representations to the vendors), the reports contained statements capable of being representations of fact rather than mere opinion, and there were triable issues on falsity, reliance and inducement such that it was not appropriate to resolve the dispute at summary judgment.

Citation
[2014] NZHC 1556
Parties
Plaintiff: Patrick Anthony Edwards; Plaintiff: Colleen Edwards; First Defendant: Nelson John Patrick Cull; First Defendant: Elizabeth Megan Cull; Second Defendant: Dwell Healthy Homes Limited; Third Defendant: Anthony John Winter; Fourth Defendant: Paul John Dempsey; Fifth Defendant: Paul John Dempsey; Fifth Defendant: Michele Avenell Dempsey; Fifth Defendant: Jonathan Paul Stuart Heslop; Fifth Defendant: Finbarn Nominees Limited; Sixth Defendant: GS Masters Builders Limited; Seventh Defendant: Scott Aaron Masters; Eighth Defendant: Grant Ross Masters; Ninth Defendant: The DC Co Limited (formerly Dominion Constructors (1973) Limited); Tenth Defendant: MSC Consulting Group Limited (formerly McGuigan Syme Chilcott Limited); Eleventh Defendant: Solid Plasterers Limited (formerly Steve Moyle Solid Plasterers Limited); Twelfth Defendant: Stephen Roy Moyle; Thirteenth Defendant: Auckland Council
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
1 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Contractual Remedies Act 1979 Misrepresentation Claim Arising From Property Sale / Defendant Summary Judgment Application (dismissed) Hearing at Interlocutory Stage
Outcome
Summary judgment application dismissed; plaintiffs retain an arguable misrepresentation claim against the first defendants and matter to proceed to trial
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Agency and Conduit Defence, Summary Judgment, Opinion Vs Fact in Representations, Caveat Emptor, Weathertightness Defects
Contract Law Property Law Civil Procedure Misrepresentation Agency and Conduit Defence Summary Judgment Opinion Vs Fact in Representations Caveat Emptor +1 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patrick Anthony Edwards

Plaintiff

Colleen Edwards

Plaintiff

Nelson John Patrick Cull

First Defendant

Elizabeth Megan Cull

First Defendant

Dwell Healthy Homes Limited

Second Defendant

Anthony John Winter

Third Defendant

Paul John Dempsey

Fourth Defendant

Paul John Dempsey

Fifth Defendant

Michele Avenell Dempsey

Fifth Defendant

Jonathan Paul Stuart Heslop

Fifth Defendant

Finbarn Nominees Limited

Fifth Defendant

GS Masters Builders Limited

Sixth Defendant

Scott Aaron Masters

Seventh Defendant

Grant Ross Masters

Eighth Defendant

The DC Co Limited (formerly Dominion Constructors (1973) Limited)

Ninth Defendant

MSC Consulting Group Limited (formerly McGuigan Syme Chilcott Limited)

Tenth Defendant

Solid Plasterers Limited (formerly Steve Moyle Solid Plasterers Limited)

Eleventh Defendant

Stephen Roy Moyle

Twelfth Defendant

Auckland Council

Thirteenth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contractual Remedies Act 1979 Misrepresentation Claim Arising From Property Sale / Defendant Summary Judgment Application (dismissed) Hearing at Interlocutory Stage

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether statements/reports constituted misrepresentations under s 6 Contractual Remedies Act 1979
  2. 2 Whether the statements were made by or on behalf of the vendors (agency/conduit issue)
  3. 3 Whether the statements were opinion or statements of fact

Ratio Decidendi

Summary judgment was dismissed because the plaintiffs established an arguable case that the independent inspector and his letter could have been acting as agents/advocates for the vendors (thereby attributing the representations to the vendors), the reports contained statements capable of being representations of fact rather than mere opinion, and there were triable issues on falsity, reliance and inducement such that it was not appropriate to resolve the dispute at summary judgment.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment application dismissed; plaintiffs retain an arguable misrepresentation claim against the first defendants and matter to proceed to trial

Orders

  • Summary judgment application dismissed
  • Costs to plaintiffs on the summary judgment application on a 2B basis