New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Remoteness

Legal area

Court

1 Feb 2023

BUCHANAN AND MARSHALL v TASMAN DISTRICT COUNCIL [2023] NZHC 53

Citation

[2023] NZHC 53
Court

High Court

The Court held the Council owed a duty to exercise reasonable skill and care in its 2009 and 2012 pool inspections and breached that duty and was liable for negligent misstatements; s 10 FOSPA did not give rise to a separate private statutory cause of action; the Building Act s393 10-year long-stop barred the claim based on the 2009 inspection but not the 2012 inspection; plaintiffs proved loss caused by the lost opportunity to sue and were awarded damages and a declaration.
15 Aug 2022

JING JUN YU AND ANDREW INVESTMENTS (2004) LIMITED v BRADLEY [2022] NZCA 378 [15 August 2022]

Citation

(2022) 23NZCPR 902
Court

Court of Appeal

Appeal dismissed: judge correctly found any initial agent misrepresentation was corrected before contract formation; purchaser did not validly and unconditionally invoke the clause 8 compensation procedure in time (boundary claim was conditional and not properly particularised) and thus could not withhold settlement; vendor's settlement notice was valid and vendor was entitled to treat purchaser's purported cancellation as repudiation and cancel; damages awarded for foreseeable losses were appropriate.
23 Mar 2021

BURDEN & ORS v PLANTATION GROWN TIMBERS (INTERNATIONAL) LIMITED & ORS [2021] NZHC 597

Citation

[2021] NZHC 597
Court

High Court

Storage costs arising from the statutory indemnity given under reg 6 and accruing as a direct result of the plaintiffs' commencement and continuation of Part 7 proceedings are not recoverable as special damages (they are too remote from the infringement) but are recoverable as disbursements specific to and reasonably necessary for the conduct of the proceeding; plaintiffs awarded scale costs (category 2B $89,089.00) and permitted to recover storage disbursements subject to deduction of pre-litigation storage for the first 10 days; claims for increased or indemnity costs and for interest were…
15 Oct 2020

DETECTION SERVICES LIMITED v PICKERING [2020] NZHC 2705

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2705
Court

High Court

The Court awarded actual componentry and labour costs attributable to the defendants' failure to deliver the jointly developed system, deducting amounts plaintiffs were contractually obliged to reimburse; componentry recoverable was $117,350.59 and labour recoverable was $122,725, totaling $240,075.59; loss of profits was rejected as speculative and not proven on the required evidential basis.
16 Jul 2019

LLOYD AND NEVILL v PANGANI PROPERTIES LTD [2019] NZCA 314

Citation

[2019] NZCA 314
Court

Court of Appeal

Court of Appeal held the correct measure of damages for the appellants' breach was the value of the lost opportunity to retain, develop and lease the property (not merely any undervalue on sale), upheld the High Court's method and 80% loss-of-chance assessment, rejected the appellants' substantive challenges to the quantum, but found it wrong in principle for the High Court to award the full $100,000 of costs incurred in disciplinary proceedings and reduced that element to $38,260.
9 May 2018

K TRUST CO LTD & ANOR v COLLINS [2018] NZHC 1007

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1007
Court

High Court

The defendant owed neighbouring property owners a duty to take reasonable care when felling trees near power lines; he breached that duty by cutting trees without adequate precautions, causing a tree to fall onto power lines, arcing to combustible material and igniting a fire; hearsay witness accounts were admissible under s18 Evidence Act 2006; the resulting property damage was not too remote; judgment awarded to plaintiffs for insured sums plus prescribed interest and costs.
7 Oct 2014

Bines v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2014] NZACC 251
Court

District Court

On the balance of probabilities the claimant's current condition by July 2013 was wholly or substantially caused by a pre‑existing impingement syndrome rendered symptomatic after the fall; the temporary post‑accident bursitis resolved and any rotator cuff weakening resulting from reduced use was too remote or not a significant contributor to found ACC liability, so the Corporation's declinature is upheld.
17 May 2006

ROCHIS LT V CHAMBERS HC HAM CIV 2005-419-1028

Citation

openlaw-9766f423_83fa_43cb_ac8d_221569ff20eb.pdf
Court

High Court

Clause 16 made the USD relation a material contractual feature and the vendors had a foreseeable right to be compensated for adverse exchange rate movement as general damages under clause 9.4(1)(b); clause 3.9(1)'s interest entitlement did not preclude recovery of exchange-rate losses because such losses cannot sensibly be liquidated by pre-agreed interest and were not remote; accordingly Rochis could not recover the exchange-rate compensation from the Chambers family and judgment was for the Chambers family.
12 Nov 2004

SCOTT & ORS V WILSON & ORS CA CA15/04

Citation

openlaw-7a4f0cff_b2db_4dc2_b333_539004bfc582.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Horwaths were negligent in failing to address the accruals regime by June 1998 but the Scotts failed to prove causation and that they would, on the balance of probabilities, have bulked-up the fund; the claimed tax loss was too remote and outside the risks encompassed by the tax compliance retainer, therefore no damages awarded and appeal dismissed.
13 Mar 2003

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V NEIL CARTER AND IRENE WRIGHT CA CA72/02

Citation

openlaw-3a3c3e17_92aa_4279_9c3b_3cda2baca685.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that no common law duty of care existed because the statutory survey regime was directed to safety not the protection of economic interests and the plaintiffs were not within the class intended to rely on survey certificates; negligent breach of statutory duty is not a valid distinct cause where the statute does not impose a duty to take care, and the plaintiffs could not amend to plead strict statutory liability which would be time-barred; accordingly all causes of action were struck out and summary judgment entered for appellants.