New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Policy considerations

Legal area

Court

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.
28 Nov 2018

VECTOR LTD v UTILITIES DISPUTES COMMISSIONER & ORS [2018] NZHC 3096

Citation

[2018] NZHC 3096
Court

High Court

The Court quashed the Commissioner's decisions because she materially erred in law by imposing a novel tortious duty of care without proper legal foundation and without adequately considering highly relevant factors (the contractual limitation/exclusion regime, the true nature of claimed losses, and the regulatory context), and because the evidential basis was insufficient for some negligence and causation findings; the matters are remitted to the Commissioner for reconsideration and payments made under the impugned decisions must be repaid with interest.
11 Oct 2017

STRATHBOSS KIWIFRUIT LIMITED v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2017] NZHC 2512

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2512
Court

High Court

Because the availability and extent of the defendant's actual insurance cover is relevant to the policy stage of the duty of care inquiry and the plaintiffs had been led to believe insurance status might be material during opening and witness examination, the defendant must give discovery of the specific policy or policies that provide some cover for the present claim; broader discovery about potential or market availability of insurance and calling new evidence about availability is not permitted at this stage absent leave.
18 Feb 2016

STRATHBOSS KIWIFRUIT LTD v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2016] NZHC 206

Citation

[2016] NZHC 206
Court

High Court

The Court confined the stage one issues to whether MPI owed a duty of care in the pre-importation context, the standard of care between January 2007 and June 2010, whether Psa-V entered New Zealand as pleaded and if so whether MPI breached that duty causing loss to Strathboss and/or Seeka; the Court limited the representative action to growers who opted in, rejected MPI's proposal for a broad multi-claimant first-stage sample, and ordered specific further disclosure and tailored discovery to enable litigation on those narrowed issues.
12 Sept 2011

MINISTER OF EDUCATION V ECONICORP HOLDINGS LTD COA CA160/2011

Citation

COA CA160/2011
Court

Court of Appeal

Majority held the strike out was inappropriate because it was arguable that the builder owed a duty of care to the Minister as owner; foreseeability and causal nexus were met and proximity and policy considerations could not be said, as a matter of law at strike-out stage, to conclusively negate a duty. Consequently the High Court's order striking out the Minister's claim was quashed.
30 Aug 2010

OTEHA INVESTMENTS LTD V SIMON YATES PLANNING LTD AND ANOR HC AK CIV-2008-404-6556

Citation

openlaw-0791892d_be3e_487b_b8f1_fc64eafff8d5.pdf
Court

High Court

The High Court held that pre-lodgement paid advisory meetings are materially different from quasi-judicial statutory consent decisions; the policy considerations relied on in Morrison and Bella Vista do not automatically negate a Hedley Byrne negligent misstatement duty in the pre-application advisory context, and therefore it could not be said at strike out stage that no duty could be owed; the strike out was quashed and the negligence claim reinstated.
26 Jul 2010

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AS SUCCESSOR TO THE ASSETS & LIABILITIES OF THE BUILDING INDUSTRY AUTHORITY V NORTH SHORE CITY COUNCIL AND ORS CA682/2008

Citation

openlaw-474245da_41f7_4f94_9ef2_57443a9db09d.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the third party notice because the BIA's statutory review function was regulatory/supervisory and did not give rise to a duty of care to the Council; proximity was lacking given the statutory allocation of responsibilities to territorial authorities, limited BIA control, and the breadth and remoteness of potential liability; policy considerations founded in the Building Act 1991 and the need to preserve the BIA's supervisory role preclude imposing the alleged duty; Sacramento is binding and dispositive.
13 Jun 2008

COUCH V ATTORNEY-GENERAL SC 49/2006

Citation

COUCH V ATTORNEY-GENERAL SC 49/2006
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff's pleaded case could not be confidently excluded as disclosing no duty of care: statutory supervisory obligations and pleaded knowledge of the parolee's risk could create sufficient proximity to give rise to a duty of care, so the claim should not be struck out and must proceed (with a further hearing on exemplary damages if required).
30 May 2007

STRUTHERS V PATTERSON CO-PARTNERS ARCHITECTS LIMITED AND ORS HC AK CIV-2003-404-3232

Citation

openlaw-86336c3b_1914_4598_9246_b7f73b8b97a9.pdf
Court

High Court

Claims in negligence against the ninth defendant (Attorney-General/BIA) and against BRANZ (tenth defendant) are struck out because the statutory scheme, the regulatory/quasi-legislative character of the BIA's functions and the tenuous nexus between BRANZ and homeowners preclude imposing the alleged duties of care; Sacramento is binding and dispositive on proximity and policy issues. The plaintiffs' FTA claim against BRANZ is not sufficiently untenable to be struck out and may proceed with amendment.
3 May 2006

POU V BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO (NZ) LTD & ANOR HC AK CIV-2002-404-1729

Citation

openlaw-5605b483_97cd_4d9d_ab9c_a5f8dc1db78e.pdf
Court

High Court

No liability: court found no enforceable duty to cease manufacture; while a prima facie duty to warn could be recognised, it was negated because the dangers of smoking (including difficulty of quitting) were common knowledge by 1968 and, on the facts, the deceased herself would have known; causation not established (Wills' product did not materially cause cancer; BAT not shown to have caused decision to start/continue smoking) and any initial breach was superseded by the deceased's informed continuation of smoking; plaintiffs' claim dismissed.