LEE v WHANGAREI DISTRICT COUNCIL  NZHC 1002 13 May 2014
application to appeal out of time from decision of Weathertight Homes Tribunal – length of delay – reasons for failure to appeal in relevant time – prejudice – merits of the appeal
KWAK v PARK CIV-2013-404-4674 25 February 2014
High Court transfer of appeal from Weathertight Homes Tribunal to the Court of Appeal – scope of the non-delegable duty of care owed by property developers to subsequent purchasers
BODY CORPORATE NO. 207624 v NORTH SHORE CITY COUNCIL SC 58/2011 5 August 2011
NORTH SHORE CITY COUNCIL v BODY CORPORATE 188529 (SUNSET TERRACES) 17 December 2010
CHEE v STAREAST INVESTMENTS LIMITED CIV 2009-404-005255 1 April 2010
KELLS v AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL 30 May 2008
BODY CORPORATE 187947 v LING CIV 2004-404-1149 13 May 2005
strike out - summary judgment - leaky buildings - negligence - liability of director - duty of care
The Court considered the case of Trevor Ivory and concluded that the principles applied in that case are not restricted to cases of negligent advice but apply whenever a company director is claimed to owe a duty of care. Whether a duty of care arises will depend on the facts of each case. There is not simply formula which makes it possible to categorise the circumstances in which a director may be personally liable. The Court found there were circumstances which suggested an assumption of responsibility sufficient to found personal liability. Application dismissed.
WAITAKERE CITY COUNCIL v SMITH CIV-2004-090-1757 28 January 2005
leaky homes - jurisdiction of WHRS tribunal to award general damages - pre-purchase report - Three Meade Street Ltd v Rotorua District Council - causation - contributory negligence
Mr Smith purchased home after obtaining a pre-purchase report. That report failed to advise him of a significant problem with the drainage work. The Council building inspector had failed to notice the same problem. On causation the Judge held that the negligence of both inspectors contributed to the loss. The purpose and intent of the Act is not inconsistent with a power to award general damages but is in fact enhanced by it. Appeal dismissed.