New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Negligent misstatement

Legal area

Court

15 Dec 2023

BODY CORPORATE NUMBER DPS 91535 v 3A COMPOSITES GMBH [2023] NZCA 648

Citation

[2023] NZCA 648
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal was dismissed because the Court was not satisfied an opt-out representative proceeding as proposed would be just and an efficient use of court resources: the proposed class and issues were too heterogeneous and speculative (notably Building Code-dependent issues and inclusion of Alucobond Plus which plaintiffs did not have), the plaintiffs were not demonstrably representative of the full range of claimants, and the proposed Stage 1 inquiry risked imposing disproportionate and oppressive burdens on defendants without achieving meaningful efficiencies.
15 Dec 2023

BODY CORPORATE NUMBER DPS 91535 v 3A COMPOSITES GMBH [2023] NZCA 647

Citation

[2023] NZCA 647
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that while the Consumer Guarantees Act can apply to overseas manufacturers of goods supplied in New Zealand, on the facts it was not seriously arguable that Alucobond panels affixed to the appellants' buildings were "goods" or that the appellants were "consumers" under the CGA, so the CGA cause failed; by contrast the appellants established, narrowly, that there is a serious issue to be tried under the Fair Trading Act because 3AC produced marketing and other materials accessible in New Zealand capable of creating misleading market impressions about Alucobond's suitability and…
10 Nov 2023

WHITELAW v SHAKESPEARE [2023] NZHC 3166

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3166
Court

High Court

Leave to join the agents as a third party while summary judgment is pending was refused because the plaintiffs' claim for breach of contract was straightforward and strong, the defendant can raise an equitable cross‑claim against the plaintiffs without joinder, the defendant's primary allegations concern representations about her own properties which are unlikely attributable to the plaintiffs, joinder would cause undue delay and complication and was not justified absent credible evidence of insolvency risk or that joinder was necessary to avoid inconsistent outcomes.
28 Apr 2023

THE COMMERCIAL HOTEL 2017 LTD v GIBSON [2023] NZHC 951

Citation

[2023] NZHC 951
Court

High Court

Where multiple plaintiffs have distinct legal positions dependent on agency, standing or contracting status, the pleading must set out separate causes of action for each plaintiff (or groups with identical positions) and plead all material facts about agency and reliance; interrogatories seeking evidential detail are premature until the pleading is properly amended. Accordingly the statement of claim was ordered to be amended and interrogatories were not ordered answered at this stage; costs awarded to defendants.
26 Apr 2023

MACFARLANE v INFORMED HOUSE INSPECTIONS LIMITED & SEWELL [2023] NZHC 934

Citation

[2023] NZHC 934
Court

High Court

On the balance of probabilities the IHI report and Sewell's verbal representations were misleading or deceptive and Sewell and IHI assumed responsibility giving rise to liability for negligent misstatement; plaintiff reasonably relied on the report and assurances, causation to loss is established, and disclaimers/inspection agreement did not absolve defendants of statutory or tortious liability where they knew or ought to have known prospective purchasers would rely on the report; accordingly judgment entered for plaintiff with damages for remediation (less a 5% reduction), alternative accomm…
24 Apr 2023

PGG WRIGHTSON REAL ESTATE LTD v ROUTHAN [2023] NZCA 123

Citation

(2023) 24 NZCPR 97
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part: the agent's disclaimer did not exclude liability for the misrepresentation, the Fair Trading Act claim was not time-barred, deceit was not established, but the recoverable loss was limited to the overpayment for the farm attributable to the misstatement measured at the transaction date; downstream forced sale losses, wasted capital expenditure and interest stemming from subsequent business decisions were outside PGG's scope of duty; damages were assessed at NZD 300,000 plus interest from settlement; cross-appeal dismissed.
21 Nov 2022

DANGEROUS GOODS COMPLIANCE LIMITED v FARQUHAR LELEAN HOLDINGS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) [2022] NZHC 3041

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3041
Court

High Court

On objective construction the SPA turnover warranty related to the business as represented for sale (the certification/auditing business and limited identified ancillary items — 'DGC domain'); FY2019 turnover included $808,652 of revenues from activities outside DGC's domain (principally ERL/reg 4.5 training and certain product sales), so the warranty was breached; defendants (Old DGC and its directors) were liable as covenantors under the SPA; MPL breached a duty by issuing a credibility letter amounting to assurance beyond a compilation engagement and was liable for negligent misstatement a…
14 Sept 2022

BODY CORPORATE NUMBER DPS 91535 v 3A COMPOSITES GmbH [2022] NZHC 2355

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2355
Court

High Court

The application for representative orders was dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate sufficient commonality and that the proposed common issue (particularly the allegation that Alucobond PE/Plus are inherently incapable of meeting the Building Code) was a substantial and proportionate basis for representative treatment across the proposed class. The applicants provided inadequate particulars about the intended represented group and their cladding, relied on a potentially contrived, overbroad 'inherent incapability' theory rather than building-specific code assessments, and did…
15 Jun 2022

WEBER v HASTINGS DISTRICT COUNCIL [2022] NZHC 1405

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1405
Court

High Court

Because Tremain Real Estate and Ms Baddeley only forwarded documentation they had received from the vendors and did not adopt or make any representations themselves, they were mere conduits; the representations in the documents were those of the vendors; plaintiffs therefore cannot establish an objectively misleading representation by the agents under s 9 FTA nor a tortious duty breach against them, so the claims against the third and fourth defendants cannot succeed and are struck out under r 15.1.
22 Dec 2021

CHEN v AUCKLAND WEIHAO INVESTMENT LTD [2021] NZHC 3598

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3598
Court

High Court

Joinder of the intended tenth and eleventh defendants was declined because the amended pleadings do not disclose any tenable cause of action against them: lawyers drafting and filing a client's defence are not personally liable for the content as representations to the opposing party; no duty of care was owed to the plaintiff absent an assumption of responsibility; s10 Companies Act does not create a private right of action enforceable by the plaintiff; AML/CFT obligations do not give rise to a duty to disclose to the plaintiff and disclosure may be unlawful; no causal link between the lawyer…