4 Mar 2021
The judge declined to strike out DNZC's claim because he was not satisfied the assignment lacked sufficient interest and was not persuaded the claim was hopeless on the pleaded facts; consequently leave to appeal was granted because arguable errors of law of sufficient importance were identified that justified interlocutory appeal.
23 Dec 2009
The claim against the council disclosed no reasonably arguable cause of action because established Court of Appeal authority (Morrison and Bella Vista), reinforced by policy considerations and the statutory scheme under the RMA, precludes imposing a private law duty of care on territorial authorities for pre-lodgement advice about planning/resource consents; accordingly the strike out under r 15.1(1)(a) was warranted.
25 Jun 2009
The claimed circumstances cannot give rise to a duty of care as a matter of law: although there is statutory proximity between councils and school owners, the proximity is not equivalent to that in Hamlin for residential homeowners, plaintiffs are not particularly vulnerable and can obtain and rely on professional advisors, and strong policy reasons (including the statutory scheme and parliamentary choices in the Building Acts and related statutes) preclude extending the duty to recover economic loss for schools; accordingly causes of action against the Council were struck out.
10 Aug 2007
The Court dismissed the council's appeal and held that the negligence claim against the council was not plainly untenable on strike‑out: the pleaded operational aspects of how the council exercised its discretion (appointment, resourcing and support of the harbourmaster and dissemination of weather/swell information) could give rise to a duty of care and contribution to the physical damage to the vessel, and these matters required fact‑specific inquiry at trial rather than summary disposal