New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Duty of care

Legal area

Court

24 Nov 2023

DAQIN HOLDING LIMITED v ELITE LEGAL LIMITED [2023] NZHC 3338

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3338
Court

High Court

Judgment for liability was entered because Elite Legal plainly breached an express contractual obligation to obtain a guaranteed title search; that breach is actionable in contract without proof of damage and the contested issues of causation, mitigation and third-party liability go to quantum not to whether the defendant breached its contract, so liability can be determined now and quantum reserved for trial.
1 Nov 2023

BODY CORPORATE 455529 v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2023] NZHC 3047

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3047
Court

High Court

The application for declaratory relief is refused for lack of jurisdiction under s 3 because the declarations sought would necessarily require the Court to determine the existence and scope of a novel tortious duty of care owed to bodies corporate as legal owners of common property rather than merely construing a statute or instrument; alternatively, even if jurisdiction existed the Court would refuse relief in its discretion because the declarations sought are overly broad, lack utility and could have unintended consequences.
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…
13 Jun 2023

AVIATION WORKERS UNITED INC v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT [2023] NZHC 1463

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1463
Court

High Court

The interim injunction application was refused because the plaintiffs failed to plead or demonstrate actual loss necessary to ground a negligence claim against the Labour Inspector; accordingly there was no serious question to be tried and, even if there were, the balance of convenience and overall justice favoured the defendant as damages were the appropriate remedy and plaintiffs retained direct remedies against the employer.
30 May 2023

CHIEM v FORDYCE COMPANY LTD [2023] NZHC 1324

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1324
Court

High Court

Costs were apportioned by setting off costs up to 21 July 2021 and awarding costs and disbursements incurred after that date in favour of the plaintiff to reflect the greater time spent on the defendant's counterclaim; applications for increased costs for pre‑21 July 2021 steps were rejected because the plaintiff did not establish a rule basis for increased costs, resulting in the defendant being ordered to pay specified percentages of post‑21 July 2021 costs and disbursements to the plaintiff.
18 Apr 2023

LIANSEN MAO v HESKETH HENRY [2023] NZHC 813

Citation

[2023] NZHC 813
Court

High Court

Plaintiffs repeatedly re-filed and pursued substantially identical, previously struck-out claims; their conduct was vexatious and caused unnecessary cost and time; they unreasonably failed to accept settlement offers; accordingly the Court awarded indemnity costs to Hesketh Henry and Ara Kim/Cooper & Co and awarded increased costs (100% uplift) to Hyun Bin Kim and Duk Young Lee.
14 Mar 2023

BODY CORPORATE 422631 v QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL [2023] NZHC 504

Citation

[2023] NZHC 504
Court

High Court

The Court granted particular discovery in part: plaintiffs must make targeted enquiries of Nigel McKenna and Michael Webb‑Speight and disclose any relevant hardcopy or electronic documents they control and must file a supplementary list of documents covering specified transactional and construction categories (d),(e),(f),(g),(h),(i),(j),(k),(l) as identified by QLDC; the Court refused broader orders to require searches of MKFSD, Melview and Peninsula absent specific evidential basis and declined to make an unless order; costs reserved.
13 Feb 2023

DAVERN v QBE INSURANCE (AUSTRALIA) LTD [2023] NZHC 182

Citation

[2023] NZHC 182
Court

High Court

The Court exercised its discretion to treat the defendant's late objection as an irregularity and to consider admissibility; it upheld objections in part, ordering excision of passages in James's brief that expressed opinions on the legal meaning or contractual obligations under the 2012 RSMA and other assertions not demonstrably within his personal knowledge, while permitting contextual evidence about processes and documents in which he was personally involved to remain subject to amendment and to further scrutiny at trial.
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 Dec 2022

DRIVE NZ CLASSIC LIMITED v LOW VOLUME VEHICLE TECHNICAL ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED [2022] NZSC 146

Citation

[2022] NZSC 146
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the Court of Appeal's decision was fact specific and did not create a blanket immunity for regulators; the applicant failed to demonstrate a matter of general or public importance or a real risk of miscarriage of justice that would justify Supreme Court intervention, and the Court of Appeal correctly applied proximity and policy considerations to strike out the negligence claim.