New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Producer statement

Legal area

Court

17 May 2022

NZ RAILWAYS STAFF WELFARE TRUST v TAURANGA CITY COUNCIL [2022] NZHC 1067

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1067
Court

High Court

On the balance of probabilities Paradise Coatings Ltd negligently installed the inter-storey junction and negligently prepared a Producer Statement which was misleading and relied on by the Council; the Council thereby became a concurrent tortfeasor and Paradise is liable to contribute 80% of the sums paid by the Council to the plaintiff for the inter-storey junction remediation and related losses, resulting in an award against Paradise of $170,212.60 plus 2B scale costs of $13,942.41.
22 Jun 2021

BODY CORPORATE 328392 v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2021] NZHC 1473

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1473
Court

High Court

On the summary judgment/strike-out material before the court, the engineer (second/third third parties) cannot be held liable for recladding design (no evidence he designed), cannot be held to have warranted or extended liability by his Opus report comments, and cannot be shown to have made the alleged substantive statements at the May 2008 visit nor owed an independent duty to speak; only the producer statement of 12 November 2006 remains a reasonably arguable claim which must proceed and raises a substantive limitation issue under the Building Act s393(2) and WHRS Act s37(1) that requires f…
14 Dec 2017

SOUTHLAND INDOOR LEISURE CENTRE CHARITABLE TRUST v INVERCARGILL CITY COUNCIL [2017] NZSC 190

Citation

[2017] NZSC 190
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that the council owed a duty of care when issuing the code compliance certificate as established in Spencer on Byron, the negligent issuance of the certificate was causative of the claimant's loss, but the claimant was contributorily negligent for failing to follow engineering recommendations in 2006 and damages should be reduced by 50%; the claim was properly treated as negligence rather than confined to negligent misstatement.
18 Nov 2014

JUDGE v DEMPSEY [2014] NZHC 2864

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2864
Court

High Court

The Court dismissed MSC's summary judgment application because the plaintiffs' claims based on MSC's issue of the Producer Statement were at least arguable: duty of care and reliance/causation issues were not incontrovertible on the affidavit material and required trial; consequently the defendant failed to establish that none of the causes of action could succeed.
24 Nov 2010

PACIFIC INDEPENDENT INSURANCE LTD V WEBBER AND ORS HC AK CIV-2009-404-4168

Citation

openlaw-b1968b14_fe19_44c1_b4fa_3e556deb89d8.pdf
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was entered for the seventh and eighth defendants because the plaintiff did not actually rely on the inspection or producer statement and therefore there was no sufficient proximity or foreseeable reliance to give rise to a duty of care and no causal nexus for the plaintiff's loss; accordingly the plaintiff's negligence claim against the individual and the company could not succeed and the Council's cross-claims fell away as a consequence.

New Zealand Case Law

NZ RAILWAYS STAFF WELFARE TRUST v TAURANGA CITY COUNCIL [2022] NZHC 1067

BODY CORPORATE 328392 v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2021] NZHC 1473

SOUTHLAND INDOOR LEISURE CENTRE CHARITABLE TRUST v INVERCARGILL CITY COUNCIL [2017] NZSC 190

JUDGE v DEMPSEY [2014] NZHC 2864

PACIFIC INDEPENDENT INSURANCE LTD V WEBBER AND ORS HC AK CIV-2009-404-4168