New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Non‑delegable duty

Legal area

Court

30 Oct 2023

BODY CORPORATE 406198 v ARGON CONSTRUCTION LTD & OR [2023] NZHC 3034

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3034
Court

High Court

On the facts the head contractor Argon owed and breached a non-delegable duty of care for the waterproofing failures and is liable in negligence; Auckland Council breached its inspection duties by failing to observe non-compliance with consented details and inadequate workmanship and is also liable in negligence for the resultant loss; the Body Corporate has standing under Unit Titles Act 2010 s 138 to sue for building elements and infrastructure that relate to or serve more than one unit; remedial entitlement is limited to reasonable works required to remedy established defects and bring aff…
31 May 2019

QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL v OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE [2019] NZHC 1223 .

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1223
Court

High Court

The Court reversed the Official Assignee because the Council demonstrated a viable contribution claim against the bankrupt as a concurrent tortfeasor, established liability and reasonable quantum by reference to the mediated settlement and accepted apportionment (20% to council), and because the Court may properly consider evidence not available to the OA when reassessing a proof of debt; the OA's rejection for insufficient detail was unsafe given the material now before the Court.
20 Jun 2018

McINNESS v JONES [2018] NZHC 1499

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1499
Court

High Court

The court ordered limited tailored discovery proportionate to the issues: defendants must disclose the building consent applications and building consents for 161 Tamaki Drive (20A/20B) and 26 Selwyn Avenue to identify the developer and the scale of works; delivery dockets/invoices are not required unless plaintiffs elect within 10 working days to pursue a per-trip wrongful use charge, in which case defendants must obtain and disclose delivery dockets; budgeted costs and negotiation records with 18 Selwyn Avenue are not discoverable as they are peripheral and not necessary to fix wrongful use…
31 Aug 2016

BODY CORPORATE NO. 375130 & ORS v HUANG & ORS [2016] NZHC 2038

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2038
Court

High Court

The defendants were the developers and therefore owed a non-delegable duty of care; they breached that duty causing identifiable defects and loss; plaintiffs proved reasonable remediation and other losses; judgment entered for plaintiffs for quantified sums and the intituling was amended to record aliases under High Court Rules r 1.9.
21 Mar 2014

STEPHENS & ANOR v BARRON CA804/2012 [2014] NZCA 82

Citation

(2014) 21 PRNZ 34
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the appeal should be dismissed because there were genuine factual disputes about the Stephens' role, degree of control, training and supervision of the employee and unresolved causation issues as to what was sprayed; those disputes meant the Court could not confidently conclude that none of the plaintiff's causes of action could succeed, so defendant summary judgment was inappropriate.
14 Jun 2012

LEE V RYANG COA CA848/2011

Citation

COA CA848/2011
Court

Court of Appeal

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because the Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction under s 95(2)(b) of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 to hear a further appeal from a High Court determination on a Weathertight Homes claim; alternatively, applying s 67(2) of the Judicature Act 1908, no question of law or fact capable of bona fide and serious argument of sufficient importance was identified and leave would be refused; accordingly leave is dismissed and costs are awarded to the respondents.
4 May 2012

CONNING AND OTHERS V MARTONI LIMITED & ORS HC AK CIV-2010-404-5351

Citation

openlaw-71a8f25e_def4_40cd_a0c0_e14112e05bc0.pdf
Court

High Court

Summary judgment and strike out were refused because the facts material to deciding whether the director personally assumed responsibility or exercised sufficient control (notably regarding the unconsented planter boxes and late-stage design changes) were unclear and in dispute; director status alone does not establish personal liability and the court could not conclude as a matter of law that the plaintiff cannot succeed.
3 Dec 2009

BANKS V THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL HC WN CIV-2006-485-002017

Citation

openlaw-08881f4f_4b33_42f1_aeec_c2ece89b11e4.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court found the causes of action accrued at the latest by April 1999 (and likely much earlier), the plaintiff failed to prove any disabling condition that prevented him from suing from April 1999, the six-year leave period expired (by April 2005), the Court therefore lacked jurisdiction to grant leave, and the proceedings are statute-barred and must be struck out.
7 Sept 2009

MOORE V MANUKAU CITY COUNCIL AND ORS HC AK CIV 2009-404-5126

Citation

openlaw-b732043a_8162_4a13_af28_765e00b6709c.pdf
Court

High Court

Given the strong and direct evidence of an intention to dissipate trust assets and a seriously arguable right of indemnity in favour of the retired trustee, the Court exercised its discretion to grant an interim freezing order joining the current trustee and restraining disposition of specified trust properties pending further order.
22 Aug 2008

BODY CORPORATE 202254 AND ANOR V S F TAYLOR CA CA205/06

Citation

openlaw-50a524d5_c6be_487e_ad42_ded779ba367f.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that the negligence claim against Mr Taylor (except for a claim based on a non-delegable duty) was not so clearly untenable as to be struck out and must be reinstated for trial; on the Fair Trading Act issues the majority adopted a broad approach to 'in trade' so that a director who provided or approved promotional representations could be personally liable under s9, but struck out only the FTA claim insofar as it alleged misleading representations as to the identity and substance of the developer; disclaimers and exclusion clauses were not conclusive and causation and factual…