North Shore City Council v The Attorney-General

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 77/2010
[2010] NZSC 125

BETWEENNORTH SHORE CITY COUNCIL

Appellant

ANDTHE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AS SUCCESSOR TO THE ASSETS & LIABILITIES OF THE BUILDING INDUSTRY AUTHORITY

Respondent

Court:Blanchard, McGrath and William Young JJ
Counsel:D J Goddard QC for Appellant

D B Collins QC, T G H Smith and B L Orr for Respondent

Judgment:13 October 2010

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A Leave to appeal is granted.

B The approved grounds are:

(i)Whether it is reasonably arguable that the BIA owed a duty of care to the Council in relation to the Grange development in any of the respects pleaded (as described in para 13.1 – 13.3 of the Council’s submissions in support of its application for leave to appeal).
(ii)Whether it is reasonably arguable that the BIA owed a duty of care to the plaintiff body corporate and unit owners in the respect pleaded (as described in para 13.4 of the Council’s submissions in support of its application for leave to appeal).

Solicitors:
Heaney & Co, Auckland for Appellant
Crown Law Office, Wellington

The Supreme Court of New Zealand was called upon to consider an appeal by the North Shore City Council against a decision of the Court of Appeal. The appellant sought to appeal the Court of Appeal's decision that the Building Industry Authority (BIA) did not owe a duty of care to the appellant, the North Shore City Council, in relation to the Grange development. The case also involved a claim by the plaintiff body corporate and unit owners for damages against the BIA. The Court of Appeal had dismissed the appeal, and the appellant sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The appeal centred on the issue of whether the BIA owed a duty of care to the appellant and the plaintiff body corporate and unit owners in relation to the Grange development.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the BIA owed a duty of care to the appellant in any of the respects pleaded and whether the BIA owed a duty of care to the plaintiff body corporate and unit owners. The court needed to determine if it was reasonably arguable that the BIA owed a duty of care to the appellant and the plaintiff body corporate and unit owners. The appellant argued that the BIA had a duty of care to ensure that the Grange development was built to the appropriate standards and that it was reasonably arguable that the BIA owed a duty of care to the appellant and the plaintiff body corporate and unit owners.

The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, finding that it was reasonably arguable that the BIA owed a duty of care to the appellant in relation to the Grange development. The court held that the BIA had a duty of care to ensure that the Grange development was built to the appropriate standards and that it was reasonably arguable that the BIA owed a duty of care to the plaintiff body corporate and unit owners. The court held that the BIA's role in the Grange development was such that it owed a duty of care to the appellant and the plaintiff body corporate and unit owners. The court found that it was reasonably arguable that the BIA owed a duty of care to the appellant and the plaintiff body corporate and unit owners. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the Court of Appeal for further consideration.

The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and found that it was reasonably arguable that the BIA owed a duty of care to the appellant and the plaintiff body corporate and unit owners in relation to the Grange development. The court held that the BIA had a duty of care to ensure that the Grange development was built to the appropriate standards and that it was reasonably arguable that the BIA owed a duty of care to the appellant and the plaintiff body corporate and unit owners. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the Court of Appeal for further consideration. The final orders of the court were that leave to appeal was granted, and the matter was remitted to the Court of Appeal for further consideration.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established