17 Jul 2015
SDC owed no duty of care to Monticello: (a) no duty arose from the resource consent process; (b) no LIM was sought by Monticello so no proximate relationship arose; (c) although a PIM duty exists to the PIM requestor, the PIM in question was obtained by the neighbour and the duty did not extend to Monticello; accordingly plaintiff's negligence claim fails.
2 Jun 2015
The Tribunal erred in removing Auckland Council because appellants advanced a tenable negligence claim with expert evidence on duty, breach and causation that could not be finally determined on the limited material before the Tribunal; the causal relationship and effect of the appellants' failure to obtain a LIM are matters for full hearing; removal under s112 was premature and unfair, therefore appeal allowed and Council reinstated.
11 Mar 2015
Council breached its statutory duty under s44A by issuing a LIM whose wording was materially incomplete and obtuse such that it failed to identify clearly the cliff-top land's general propensity to slip; however the plaintiffs failed to prove causation in fact and, in any event, the physical damage losses resulting from an unforeseeable deep-seated slip were outside the scope of the statutory/informational duty such that those losses are not legally caused by the Council's breach, so claim dismissed.
10 Mar 2014
On the pleaded facts this is a transaction case: any material economic loss caused by the Council's negligent omission in the LIM was suffered, at the latest, on 30 September 2005 when the respondents bought the motel for more than it was worth; therefore the claim was time‑barred by the Limitation Act 1950 and must be struck out under Altimarloch principles.
5 Nov 2013
The strike out application was dismissed because it was not plain and obvious that the plaintiffs' cause of action was statute-barred; material factual questions exist as to when loss accrued (at settlement in 2005 or when the market value fell around November 2010) and those issues must be resolved at trial rather than on a summary strike out.
14 Jul 2010
The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal limited to two questions—whether a local authority owes a duty of care to the recipient of a LIM under s 44A and, if so, whether the claimant suffered recoverable loss—while refusing leave on proposed grounds concerning whether the information was given in terms of s 44A and whether s 41 applied because those grounds lacked realistic prospects of success based on the Court of Appeal's reasoning.
13 Jul 2010
Leave to appeal was granted to determine whether and in what circumstances a territorial authority carrying out Building Act regulatory functions owes a duty of care to purchasers (including investor and subsequent purchasers); the proposed cross-appeal by Blue Sky regarding negligence in issuing a LIM was dismissed because a LIM accurate on its face does not impose an obligation on the authority to re-examine earlier documents and treating a LIM as restarting limitation periods would be contrary to legislative intent.
29 Mar 2010
Court held the Moorhouses (via their agents and solicitors) made actionable misrepresentations which induced AJVL to confirm the purchase; AJVL's expectation damages award (cost to obtain functional equivalent water and related works totaling NZD1055907.16) was upheld; MDC negligently issued a LIM within s44A, owed a duty of care and was liable in contribution/damages on a detriment basis (contract price minus value acquired = NZD125000), apportioned equally between MDC and the vendors; contributory negligence was not available as a defence to the s6 contractual remedy; s41 LGOIMA did not gra…
22 Mar 2010
The Court held the Council was liable for negligent inspections that caused latent waterproofing defects even though no code compliance certificate issued; purchasers were entitled to rely on proper inspections (general reliance) but failure to obtain a LIM or equivalent enquiries is contributory negligence (reducing awards); where a purchaser instructed a solicitor to obtain searches the solicitor's failure to obtain a LIM can be attributed to the purchaser for apportionment purposes; a body corporate may sue for damage to common property pro rata to proprietors; awards for non-economic loss…
22 Mar 2010
The Court held that the Hamlin duty of care survives the Building Act 1991 and extends to apartment and multi-unit residential developments and to owners including subsequent owners and investors/assignees where the intended use was residential; territorial authorities owe a duty to take reasonable steps in granting building consents, performing inspections and issuing code compliance certificates and the LIM regime does not extinguish that duty; designers may be liable for negligently issuing false practical completion certificates when relied upon by purchasers; limitation and causation pri…