11 Aug 2022
The plaintiff acted as an on‑site representative but did not assume the role of project manager nor possess special skill; qualified consultants were engaged and led the technical work; accordingly no duty of care, as alleged, was established and, in any event, material breach and causation were not proved, so both the claim and counterclaim fail.
22 Jun 2021
The pleaded fiduciary duty did not arise independently of the defendant's employment as CFO; the claim's essence was employment-related and therefore the first cause of action, which depended entirely on the employment relationship, was struck out as properly within the jurisdiction of the employment institutions.
14 Jun 2021
The Court struck out the plaintiffs' negligence claim against MBSS Limited (MAXRaft) because, even assuming MAXRaft knew of or agreed to arrange the in-slab heating, the contractual architecture and allocation of risk between owner, head contractor and sub-contractor, together with the nature of the loss as pure economic loss and the limits of assumption of responsibility doctrine in construction settings, meant it was not just and reasonable to impose a tortious duty of care to the plaintiffs; foreseeability alone was insufficient and the pleaded duty would cut across contractual arrangement…
2 Apr 2020
Leave under s76 granted; on the facts Cockery acted 'in trade' as SBC's alter ego and his Report and plans were misleading and deceptive because they omitted fundamental, observable fire-safety requirements; Adventurer reasonably relied on the Report and suffered loss causally linked to the omissions; negligent misstatement claim dismissed against Cockery personally for lack of requisite personal assumption of responsibility; damages under s43 FTA are capped by the parties' contractual limitation, which on the facts was held to extend to Adventurer and to Cockery, so recovery limited to five…
23 Oct 2019
On the pleaded facts and assumed true for interlocutory purposes, the plaintiffs disclosed a reasonably arguable cause of action in negligent misstatement: it was arguable the agent assumed responsibility by preparing and presenting the sale agreements and making the "plus GST, if any" representation in circumstances where plaintiffs lacked legal advice, and it was foreseeable and reasonable they would rely on those representations; therefore the strike out and defendant summary judgment applications fail.
12 Jun 2015
Managerial liability under the supervisory jurisdiction remains subject to s49: a manager is liable for losses only if he acted in bad faith or without reasonable care in exercising powers conferred by the Family Court; where the Family Court expressly excluded power to settle relationship property and appointed counsel to represent the subject, the manager was not under a relevant duty to procure settlement and solicitors' retainer terminated upon the client's incapacity; factual deficiencies regarding the surrender of life insurance policies required remittance to the High Court for determi…
8 May 2015
The claim was struck out because it was barred by s317 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001: the losses claimed arise from a statutory entitlement to attendant care and remedies are confined to the ACC regime; no novel common law duty of care to a third‑party caregiver to recover pure economic loss should be imposed given the legislative scheme and public policy considerations.
14 Aug 2014
On the evidence the Tribunal correctly found that Sayles acted as the project manager who assumed responsibility for the works, owed a duty of care to the Adams, breached that duty, and the High Court on rehearing concurred with those factual and legal conclusions; the appeal is dismissed.
30 May 2014
Clear, repeatedly stated disclaimers and contractual terms limiting the report to the named client and excluding weathertightness assurance meant Rastros had no contractual privity, could not reasonably rely on the report, and no proximate duty in tort or liability under the Fair Trading Act arose; identical reasoning excludes personal liability of the employee, so the third party claims are untenable and struck out.
31 Mar 2014
The amendment to plead that the plaintiffs also sue as trustees did not introduce a new statute-barred cause of action under r 7.77(2) because the substantive common law negligence claim and the material facts relied upon remained the same; the change merely affects the capacity in which damages, if recovered, will be held (trust for the daughter) and caused no prejudice given the defendant's prior awareness that investments were in the daughter's name, therefore the strike-out application failed and leave to amend was granted.