REGINALD ANTHONY HOLE V DAVID WARWICK SNEDDEN HC AK CIV 2012-404-001699

REGINALD ANTHONY HOLE V DAVID WARWICK SNEDDEN HC AK CIV 2012-404-001699

The valuer's report was conditional and hypothetical; the solicitor relied on and communicated the valuation as if it were a present unqualified market value, failed to disclose the conditions, and permitted advances that did not comply with Solicitors Nominee Company Rules r8; those omissions and conduct constituted negligence and misleading conduct and established liability on summary judgment because the disputed facts were immaterial to liability.

Citation
openlaw-340aad71_6fbc_4cc8_990c_672aa46725a0.pdf
Parties
First Plaintiff: Reginald Anthony Hole; Second Plaintiff: Mary-Ann Boys; First Defendant: David Warwick Snedden; Second Defendant: Snedden Solicitors Nominee Company Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
1 August 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil – Professional Negligence and Fair Trading Act (summary Judgment Application) / Summary Judgment (liability Only)
Outcome
Judgment entered for plaintiffs against defendants as to liability only
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Fiduciary Duty, Valuation Reliance, Development Mortgage, Misleading or Deceptive Conduct
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Property Law Regulatory Compliance Consumer Protection Summary Judgment Fiduciary Duty Valuation Reliance +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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Reginald Anthony Hole

First Plaintiff

Mary-Ann Boys

Second Plaintiff

David Warwick Snedden

First Defendant

Snedden Solicitors Nominee Company Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil – Professional Negligence and Fair Trading Act (summary Judgment Application) / Summary Judgment (liability Only)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the solicitor breached duties by relying on and failing to disclose the conditional nature of a valuer's hypothetical subdivision valuation
  2. 2 Whether the solicitor breached Solicitors Nominee Company Rules 1996 r8 by permitting an advance secured on development land that did not meet the rule's requirements
  3. 3 Whether the solicitor engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct contrary to s9 Fair Trading Act 1986 by omitting to advise clients of valuation conditions

Ratio Decidendi

The valuer's report was conditional and hypothetical; the solicitor relied on and communicated the valuation as if it were a present unqualified market value, failed to disclose the conditions, and permitted advances that did not comply with Solicitors Nominee Company Rules r8; those omissions and conduct constituted negligence and misleading conduct and established liability on summary judgment because the disputed facts were immaterial to liability.

Court Disposition

Judgment entered for plaintiffs against defendants as to liability only

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the plaintiffs against the defendants as to liability only
  • Proceeding adjourned to a chambers list call on 17 August 2012 at 2:15pm for scheduling a trial to determine quantum