New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Third party indemnity

Legal area

Court

11 Feb 2013

JOHNSON V AUCKLAND COUNCIL HC AK CIV-2010-404-837

Citation

openlaw-5005982f_806f_40bb_9324_6d5e071d1406.pdf
Court

High Court

Plaintiffs were contributorily negligent because they failed to take reasonable steps (inspect council records, obtain pre-purchase/building reports or negotiate protective contractual conditions) despite evident risk indicators and the peculiar circumstances of a mortgagee sale; causation established between plaintiffs' failures and their economic loss; measure of damages for the council's tortious negligence is the difference between purchase price and market value of the property in its defective state at date of purchase (diminution in value), and plaintiffs' recoverable sum is reduced to…
14 Dec 2010

ROWAN JOHN CHAPMAN, GEOFFREY DONALD CAMPBELL WALKER AND TERENCE FRANCIS MCGRATH V BADON LTD CA782/2008

Citation

openlaw-bce810ce_eb9b_4cb0_b498_6bfa1b22d759.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court declined the appellants' application for costs: even if jurisdiction existed to quash or vary the High Court costs order after abandonment, it should not be exercised because later events making the fifth cause redundant do not mean the appellants succeeded on their interlocutory strike out application; interlocutory costs are for the court below and, in the circumstances, costs should lie where they fall; no order for costs for the present application.
7 May 2009

COLL & ORS V LAKES STATION PARTNERSHIP HC CHCH CIV-2007-409-000225

Citation

openlaw-7fd0155c_32ff_42c6_b739_36c115aaff30.pdf
Court

High Court

The court held that (1) the brochure and agent's 3500–4000 stock unit statements were opinions honestly held and reasonably based and did not amount to actionable misrepresentations; (2) agent's remarks preferring 3500 were within that opinion and not a factual guarantee; (3) statements about irrigation continuous operation and river inflow did not induce purchase because buyers were told to consult the installer and expert responses were equivocal; (4) the brochure's statement of 'huge potential when fully developed' was an opinion not reasonably grounded for the claimed extent and did misle…
3 Jul 2008

ALTIMARLOCH JOINT VENTURE LIMITED V MOORHOUSE AND ANOR HC BLE CIV-2005-406-000091

Citation

openlaw-aa9bb8e0_3843_4017_8af6_6ed17487fee4.pdf
Court

High Court

Court found defendants liable: Moorhouses liable for misrepresentations made by their agents (Bayleys and GW) inducing purchaser; MDC owed a duty under s44A LGOIMA to take care in issuing a LIM and breached it by failing to record transfer of half the A permit; plaintiff did not cause or contribute to its loss; damages to be quantified with liability apportioned 66% to Moorhouses and 34% to MDC; Moorhouses recover against third parties Bayleys and GW with apportionment 80% Bayleys and 20% GW.

New Zealand Case Law

JOHNSON V AUCKLAND COUNCIL HC AK CIV-2010-404-837

ROWAN JOHN CHAPMAN, GEOFFREY DONALD CAMPBELL WALKER AND TERENCE FRANCIS MCGRATH V BADON LTD CA782/2008

COLL & ORS V LAKES STATION PARTNERSHIP HC CHCH CIV-2007-409-000225

ALTIMARLOCH JOINT VENTURE LIMITED V MOORHOUSE AND ANOR HC BLE CIV-2005-406-000091