New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

New Zealand Case Law

Duty of care and proximity

  • 12 Aug 2013

    MARLEY NZ LTD v SKELLERUP RUBBER SERVICES LTD [2013] NZHC 2035

    Citation
    [2013] NZHC 2035
    Court
    High Court

    The third party notices were correctly set aside because negligent installation by the third parties could not reasonably have been foreseen to cause the specific damage to Marley (its liability to make good defective pipes and pay $7 million); accordingly the damage caused by the installers is not the "same damage" for the purposes of s17 LRA and Skellerup's contribution claim is not tenable.

    • Contribution under s17 law reform act 1936
    • Third party notices
    • Duty of care and proximity
    • Causation
    • Strike out / set aside applications

  • 2 May 2013

    DEEMING V EIG-ANSVAR LIMITED & ORS HC AK CIV-2011-404-6476

    Citation
    openlaw-7cbfcaac_a8d8_4b25_9f90_d670d2bf7a27.pdf
    Court
    High Court

    The Court held Geotek's geotechnical reports were not "building work" for the purposes of s393 Building Act 2004 because they assessed general suitability of subdivided land and were not design or construction work for any specific house, so the s393 long-stop did not bar the proceedings; the plaintiff's negligent misstatement claim against Geotek was struck out because there was no pleaded or evidential actual reliance or direct dealing by the plaintiff and the clear disclaimer excluded liability; however misleading or deceptive conduct claims under the Fair Trading Act were not struck out a…

    • Definition of building work
    • S393 building act 2004 long-stop limitation
    • Disclaimer effect in negligent misstatement
    • Duty of care and proximity
    • Actual reliance requirement
    • Strike out and summary judgment principles

  • 30 Apr 2009

    JOHN EVANS DORBU V DAVID COOKE AND ORS HC AK CIV 2008-404-005222

    Citation
    openlaw-17b94a67_03d2_4ff8_880e_7036e3b49b44.pdf
    Court
    High Court

    Defamation claim struck out and summary judgment entered because pleadings failed to specify the defamatory words or meanings as required and there was no evidence the defendants published the statements attributed to the Body Corporate; negligence, trespass and conspiracy claims fail because the impugned acts were taken by the Body Corporate (a separate entity), no personal duty or unlawful means were pleaded or established, and the pleaded causes of action disclose no reasonable grounds to succeed.

    • Summary judgment
    • Strike out
    • Particulars of defamatory meaning
    • Duty of care and proximity
    • Publication and attribution
    • Company limited liability and personal liability of officers