New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Causation and reliance

Legal area

Court

16 Oct 2017

BUSHLINE TRUSTEES LTD v ANZ BANK NZ LIMITED [2017] NZHC 2520

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2520
Court

High Court

Claims dismissed: the court found no binding agreement to fix margins at 0.70% for five years; the Bank made misleading statements comparing swaps to fixed loans but did not fraudulently conceal facts; crucially the swap and loan written terms (no‑reliance/entire agreement clauses) combined with solicitor's certificates of independent advice severed the proximity and reliance necessary for tort and contractual remedies and broke causation; most FTA claims were time‑barred and the CCCFA/oppression claim failed on the facts and objective commercial standards.
12 May 2017

JOHNSON & ANOR v ARMSTRONG & ORS [2017] NZHC 949

Citation

[2017] NZHC 949
Court

High Court

On an objective reading of the website content and the template building contract, the sixth defendant did not make misleading or deceptive representations that a Homefirst Guarantee would be automatically provided or free; the website and contract expressly indicated the guarantee was provided by third parties, subject to application, approval and payment, so the plaintiffs' FTA and negligent misstatement claims cannot succeed and summary judgment is granted for the sixth defendant.
4 Sept 2015

NG & ORS v HARKNESS LAW LTD [2015] NZCA 411

Citation

[2015] NZCA 411
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal held the Associate Judge erred in striking out the Fair Trading Act claim and declaring it unable to succeed because on the material available the pleading could be amended and there was a reasonably arguable case that the use of the solicitors' trust account and associated communications could have misled investors and that accessory/dishonest assistance allegations were arguable; summary disposal was premature and further evidence was permitted.
14 Apr 2014

H & H CONTRACTORS LIMITED v LEIGHTON CONTRACTORS PTY LIMITED [2014] NZHC 764

Citation

[2014] NZHC 764
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the contractual framework (clause 45) and the pleaded facts showed no tenable FTA cause of action that could be cured by amendment: the alleged misleading conduct did not cause the pleaded losses (causation) nor was there reliance, the prescribed contractual dispute process governed disputes and the date of formal termination was immaterial to the matter in issue, and therefore no question of law or fact capable of bona fide and serious argument was raised.
14 Sept 2012

SAFFIOTI V AUCKLAND COUNCIL HC AK CIV-2012-404-002091

Citation

openlaw-50fc3790_e552_417b_86e3_8746ff6f88dc.pdf
Court

High Court

Section 50(3) of the Building Act provides a complete defence to claims based on a LIM that merely records a certifier-issued code compliance certificate where the Council acted in good faith in reliance on that certificate; applicants did not plead lack of good faith and s 44A did not impose an actionable duty to state the certifier's identity or reasons for deregistration, therefore the claims lack reasonable prospects of success and leave to appeal out of time is refused.
12 Dec 2011

APPLETON AND RYAN AS TRUSTEES OF THE APPLETON FAMILY TRUST V TAURANGA LAW HC TAU CIV 2010-070-385

Citation

openlaw-fc7f59e9_09db_4b92_8559_450ca1e5511d.pdf
Court

High Court

The court held a tortious duty of care arose by 29 April 2004 when the solicitor received the vendor's papers and assumed responsibility, and the solicitor was negligent in failing to give sufficiently detailed and timely advice; however the plaintiff failed on causation because he had formed a fixed intention to proceed and would not have cancelled even if properly advised, so the negligence did not cause the loss and the plaintiff's claim fails.
26 Sept 2011

HAMID V ENGLAND HC AK CIV-2009-404-003697

Citation

openlaw-9581a3b3_2480_4b37_9610_964e15ce22a9.pdf
Court

High Court

Judge found Mr England was acting in trade and made a misleading representation by saying he was not aware of problems while he knew of an earlier adverse moisture inspection; Barfoot & Thompson held apparent authority and was therefore liable under s45(4); Mrs England (vendor) was not in trade; the CBZ report influenced the purchase but did not sever causation; purchaser contributed to loss (25%); apportionment of liability: first defendant 80%, third defendant 20%; plaintiffs awarded monetary relief (plaintiffs awarded 75% of agreed primary loss and 75% of reduced general damages).
22 Oct 2009

CONCRETE STRUCTURES (NZ) LIMITED V DEZIGN WORKS HB LIMITED HC NAP CIV-2009-441-115

Citation

openlaw-6aeab263_4f53_4ef7_8477_64fe2575aa78.pdf
Court

High Court

Summary judgment dismissed because there were substantial and genuine disputes of fact and credibility about whether the defendant made the alleged representations and whether the plaintiff relied on them to its detriment; the plaintiff failed to satisfy the court that the defendant had no fairly arguable defence.
11 Dec 2007

TFAC LIMITED AND ANOR V DAVID AND ANOR HC AK CIV-2006-404-3984

Citation

openlaw-834d123c_c770_4702_b4bb_52bd2c4694d6.pdf
Court

High Court

Considering the totality of representations (Australian success, promotional literature, introductions to Australian franchisees, positive profile analysis commentary, repeated assertions of high enquiry levels) and material nondisclosures (terminated New Zealand franchisees and absence of sales), the defendants' conduct was objectively misleading under s9 Fair Trading Act; contractual disclaimers and certificates did not negate the proven overall misleading course of conduct; plaintiffs reasonably relied on the representations and established causation, entitling them to cancellation and res…