New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Apportionment and contribution

Legal area

Court

22 Dec 2016

ANDREWS PROPERTY SERVICES LIMITED V BODY CORPORATE 160361 [2016] NZCA 644

Citation

[2016] NZCA 644
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part: it held clause 1.0 remained an express inspection obligation assumed by Babbage and not by APS, and APS did not owe the owners the tortious duty to ensure or compel Babbage to perform that contractual survey (the High Court finding of APS liability for failing to ensure the survey was set aside). However APS breached the specification/implicit workmanlike obligation by failing to obtain required fixing details (clearance holes) and thus breached an implied duty in installing the Eterpan panels; APS's producer statement was misleading insofar as…
22 Dec 2008

BODY CORPORATE 185960 AND ORS V NORTH SHORE CITY COUNCIL AND ORS HC AK CIV-2006-004-003535

Citation

openlaw-2c8188ef_1fad_4c46_a9fd_86d13c39ca78.pdf
Court

High Court

The defendant B Gailer was a developer and, alternatively, was the project manager for Kilham Mews; he owed and breached the non-delegable duty to exercise reasonable skill and care which caused leaky building damage requiring full re-cladding and ancillary repairs; Kilham Mews Limited was a bare trustee and did not absolve Mr Gailer of developer liability; accordingly plaintiffs succeed on liability and entitlement to damages with quantification deferred; apportionment of liability between developer and council is 80% (Gailer) and 20% (North Shore City Council).