Blog Archives

(District Court, 31 January 2013, Auckland, Judge Sinclair, CIV-2012-004-2027) The above case involved a successful objection to a notice to enter land issued by the Minister for Land Information under section 111 of the Public Works Act 1981. Note: Adina Thorn Lawyers acted for the objectors. Background The notice related to the roading project by

(High Court, 30 October 2012, Wellington, Simon France J, CIV-2012-485-2017) Background This case involved a protracted dispute between Mr Pilkington and Fidelity Life Insurance Company Limited (Fidelity). Mr Pilkington became unable to work is 2004.  He held income protection insurance with Fidelity, and Fidelity initially accepted his entitlement to monthly income payments.  However, a dispute

(High Court, CIV 2010-476-624, 13 June 2012, Chisholm J) This was an unsuccessful originating application by The Institute of Cadastral Surveying Incorporated (the Institute) seeking a declaration as to what comprises the component parts of a Cadastral Survey Dataset and who is responsible or liable for each of those component parts.. Background Land Information New

(Spencer on Byron, Supreme Court, [2012] NZSC 83, Elias CJ, Tipping, McGrath, William Young and Chambers JJ) In a significant decision released on 11 October 2012, the Supreme Court decided that the Council owes a duty of care in tort to owners of mixed residential and commercial buildings. This has major implications for leaky homeowners

(Court of Appeal, CA60/2011, 7 June 2012, Arnold, Randerson and Stevens JJ) This successful appeal confirms that the Government is able to compulsorily acquire land that is indirectly required for government work. Background The Minister of Land Information considered that Ms Seaton’s land was required to relocate electricity towers owned by Transpower and Orion so

(Court of Appeal, CA160/2011, 12 September 2011, Glazebrook, Arnold and Harrison JJ) In 1999 the first respondent built a hall at Glenn Innes Primary School (the School) pursuant to a contract it had entered into with the School’s Board of Trustees (the Board).  The first respondent engaged the second respondent to provide design and other

(High Court, Auckland, CIV-2011-404-2570, 2 April 2012, Fogarty J) This was an unsuccessful appeal against the judgment of the WHT finding that the Council had breached a duty of care in inspecting the top of the parapets and the fixings of the handrails of a house being constructed. Parapets With respect to the parapets, the

Scandle v Far North District Council ([2012] NZCA 52, 1 March 2012, Chambers, Ronald Young and Andrews JJ) This was an unsuccessful appeal against the judgment of the High Court finding that the Council was not negligent and none of the Council’s acts were causative of the appellant’s loss. Background The property was a holiday

(High Court, Auckland, CIV2009-404-3697, 26 September 2011, Whata J) The first defendants, a real estate agent and his wife, decided to sell their family home. The sole agency was given to his employer, Barfoot and Thompson, the second defendant. The house was advertised under the Barfoot and Thompson banner. The first defendants then, with Barfoot

(High Court, CIV 2011-404-4384, 4 April 2011, Ellis J and P J Mahoney) The appellants had objected to the assessment of the rateable value of land that they leased from the Council.  The land consists of twelve parcels of land located at the Upper Waitemata Harbour at Hobsonville. As the appellants paid the rates, they