CPB Contractors Pty Ltd v WSP New Zealand Ltd [2024] NZHC 640

This case provides a useful analysis of a designer’s liability for negligent design, concisely summarising relevant principles governing contractual interpretation and the assessment of damages.

Read More


Limitation and the Building Act longstop

In two recent decisions, the High Court provided further guidance on the application of s 393 Building Act 2004 to amended pleadings

Read More


The Enchanter verdict: can accidents at sea occur without human error?

The much anticipated judgment of the District Court in Maritime New Zealand v Goodhew was delivered on 22 July 2024.

Read More


Defendants sentenced following harrowing accounts from victims and family members in the latest decision arising out of the Whakaari (White Island) disaster

WorkSafe charged 13 defendants in 2020. Of those, six pled guilty and one was found guilty at trial. Of the seven guilty parties, one had been sentenced.

Read More


Is a Trust a person for the purposes of The Health and Safety at Work Act?

The High Court has recently grappled with the issue of whether a trust can be the subject of a WorkSafe prosecution under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015.

Read More


Nervous shock claims for medical negligence: Paul & Anor v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust [2024] UKSC1

The UK Supreme Court has confined personal injury claims by secondary victims to cases involving accidents, confirming the Alcock requirements and striking out claims by secondary victims who suffered personal injury as a result of witnessing a close relative’s death or injury due to medical negligence.

Read More


Whakaari Management Limited found guilty in Worksafe’s latest prosecution arising out of the Whakaari White Island disaster

After six out of the 13 defendants prosecuted by WorkSafe successfully applied to have charges against them dismissed and another six pled guilty, WorkSafe has successfully prosecuted Whakaari Management Limited: the last remaining party.

Read More


Livingstone v CBL Corporation [2023] NZCH 2712

When commercial parties to litigation agree to settle their dispute on terms prior to trial, ordinarily the only thing left to do is to notify the court and file a notice of discontinuance.

Read More


Young v AG [2023] NZSC 142

Nuisance is more regularly featuring as a cause of action available where there is damage to land and structures.

Read More


Liability of Hawkins’ insurer to homeowner for wasted rebuild costs

The High Court decision in Davern confirms the obligation of a contractor, engaged by an insurer, to a homeowner to administer and coordinate a managed repair.

Read More


PI insurance and the risk of silent cyber exposure

We are seeing more insurers using cyber exclusions and endorsements in their Personal Indemnity policies to restrict cover for cyber events. This trend is likely to continue. However, express exclusions for cyber events are not (yet) standard in the PI market in New Zealand. Darren Turnbull investigates what recent activity in the UK insurance market might eventually impact the market here.

Read More


Cyber Security

Unfortunately, there are no shortcuts to achieving effective cyber security. Achieving a sufficient level of security requires genuine engagement with the issue. Reliance on dated systems, and a ‘she’ll be right’ attitude will only result in disaster. Tony Clark takes a closer look at what genuine engagement looks like.

Read More


Potential and pitfalls of ChatGPT in the legal context

We are routinely told that artificial intelligence is poised to revolutionise the practice of law. For generative AI tools like ChatGPT, it might even be true. That makes it all the more important to understand its strengths and limitations. Linda Hui provides an overview of how ChatGPT works, what it can and can’t do, and some of the issues faced by early adopters.

Read More


The impact of AI technology on Discovery in New Zealand

To put AI-generated through a full test we asked Stacey Wright, McElroys’ e-discovery guru, to generate an article for this issue of Navigate using ChatGPT as a showcase of its capabilities and limitations. Using topic prompts, she was sent back a lengthy piece which we have not edited. Read all about the impact of AI technology on Discovery in New Zealand.

Read More


Rugby World Cup Legal Question: Do coaches owe duties of confidentiality to former teams?

To round up our article summary, we return to reality! Peter Hunt looks at whether a Rugby World Cup coach could be subject to an injunction if he coaches a new team against a former team.

Read More


Ryan v Health and Disability Commissioner [2023] NZSC 42 (28 April 2023)

A full bench of the Supreme Court has had the final say in relation to an issue arising out of a complaint to the office of the Health and Disability Commissioner

Read More


Damages for negligent misstatement inducing a sale by a real estate agent

A real estate agent who provides inaccurate information to a purchaser is only liable for the consequences of negligently supplying that information.

Read More


Port Hills fires: What duty do you owe your neighbour?

In February 2017 a devastating wildfire in the Port Hills of Christchurch burned through more than 1,600 hectares of land and destroyed nine homes, some of them newly rebuilt properties which had been destroyed in the 2010-2011 earthquake sequence.

Read More


Should a terminal illness benefit be paid if the life assured can be cured?

Disputes about the meaning of life policies do not often come before the Courts in New Zealand. Insurers might regard the scope of life insurance as settled and uncontroversial – payment is dependent upon the duration of human life.

Read More


The Thorco Lineage

In this recent decision the English High Court considered the ability of a shipowner to limit its liability where there has been both physical damage and economic loss to cargo.

Read More


The Court of Appeal upholds the High Court’s decision and says “no 10-year long stop” for contribution claims under s 17 Law Reform Act 1936

The Court of Appeal has upheld the High Court’s decision dismissing Beca’s application for strike out or summary judgment.

Read More


Cybercrime and Cyber Insurance

Cybercrime has increased massively in recent years. The latest Cyber Security Insights Report produced by the New Zealand watchdog, Computer Emergency Response Team, states that New Zealanders have suffered the highest financial loss ever reported in a three-month period to the end of September 2022 of $8.9 million.

Read More


Claims involving weathertightness and other defects. In or out, or a mix of both?

The recent Court of Appeal judgment involving Napier City Council and Riskpool resolves the issue of whether a claim involving both weathertightness and other defects may be wholly excluded based on a weathertightness exclusion.

Read More


WorkSafe New Zealand v Buttle [2022] NZDC 20694 – Whakaari White Island directors fail to have charges dismissed

The substantive hearing of the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 (HSWA) charges against 10 organisations and three individuals in relation to the Whakaari White Island eruption is due to be heard in nine months.

Read More


A lesson in proving damage: Body Corporate 328564 v Vero Insurance New Zealand Limited [2022]

In this proceeding, where McElroys acted for the defendant insurer, The High Court provided guidance on the repair of earthquake damaged concrete elements to the “when new” policy standard and on what the insured is required to do to prove damage.

Read More


Agents, conduits and strike out

The High Court recently considered whether, in providing documentation to the potential purchasers of a property, a real estate agent had misled them as to weathertightness issues. The Court was required to decide whether the agent/agency was a mere conduit of the information provided to the purchasers or something more.

Read More


Lost in Translation: Some guidance on dealing with culturally and linguistically diverse parties

Increasingly the Courts are being called on to adjudicate disputes between parties with diverse backgrounds. Recently the Supreme Court provided guidance on navigating such disputes in Donglin Deng v Lu Zheng [2022] NZSC 76.

Read More


Eyes Astern – Increased MTA Fines on the Horizon?

We are maintaining a watch on Ministry of Transport proposals to increase the maximum penalties for offences under the Maritime Transport Act 1994 (MTA).

Read More


Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia hands down judgment in Business Interruption Test Cases

The UK Supreme Court recently handed down judgment in the important auditor’s negligence case of Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton UK LLP [2021] UKSC 20. It addressed the scope of a professional’s duty of care including the proper application of the principles in SAAMCO (South Australian Asset Management Corp v York Montague Ltd [1997] AC 191).

Read More


Vaccine Mandates – Current Position and Issues for Employers

This article provides an overview of vaccine mandates and considers issues for employers going forward.

Read More


Body Corporate 355492 v Queenstown Lakes District Council [2022] NZHC 678 – Limitation Under the Building Act Longstop

The High Court’s April decision in Body Corporate 355492 v Queenstown Lakes District Council principally considered the application of the longstop to amended pleadings.

Read More


WorkSafe New Zealand v National Emergency Management Agency [2022] NZDC 8020

The District Court has dismissed charges against the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) on the grounds that NEMA did not owe a duty under s36(2) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 (HSWA) to identify and analyse the risks to the life of visitors and tour operators on Whakaari White Island from volcanic hazards.

Read More


Sneesby v Southern Response

In Sneesby v Southern Response, the High Court held that a settlement agreement was a bar to a new claim by the policyholder against Southern Response. This was in respect of alleged misrepresentations when settling the earthquake claim. Kiri Harkess looks at why Associate Judge Lester arrived at a different conclusion on this issue to that of Justice Gendall in Dodds v Southern Response.

Read More


Yardley – Is the tide turning on the validity of mandatory vaccination orders?

In Yardley v Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety [2022] NZHC 291, three Police and Defence Force workers sought to judicially review the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Specified Work Vaccinations) Order 2021 (Order) effective on 16 December 2021 under s 11AA of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 (Act). The Order required certain Police and Defence Force personnel to be vaccinated by 1 March 2022. The judicial review was heard by Cooke J.

Read More


HSWA: District Court convicts but discharges with no fine imposed

In MNZ v Tauranga Fishing Charters Ltd, the District Court ordered the defendant company be convicted and discharged without the imposition of any fine. The decision not to impose a fine is a rare outcome in any regulatory prosecution, particularly one involving a charge under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 (HSWA).

Read More


When is a loss adjuster’s file subject to privilege?

When an insured notifies a claim, the insurer appoints a loss adjuster or assessor to investigate. This may seem straightforward, but questions can arise… At which point does the loss adjuster’s file attract the protection of privilege?

Read More


What can make the Vessel Unseaworthy? The UK Supreme Court – The CMA CGM Libra [2021] UKSC 51

This case concerned the scope of a ship owner’s obligation to exercise due diligence to make a vessel seaworthy. This concept features significantly in Article III and Article IV of the Hague-Visby Rules, which were incorporated into the bills of lading issued by the carrier.

Read More


WXN v Auckland International Airport Ltd

Employers in many sectors are now faced with the need to implement COVID-19 vaccination mandates, either as a result of a statutory order, or following a risk assessment. The Employment Court decision 23 November 2021, WXN v Auckland International Airport Ltd, demonstrates the importance of properly determining whether an employee is “an affected person” and acting in good faith towards vaccine-hesitant or opposed employees, including following a fair process.

Read More


Will Shipping get in line with Global Climate Goals?

“Get in line or get out of our way.” That was the message laid down by New Zealand’s own climate activist India Logan-Riley at COP 26, the United Nations climate summit held in Glasgow in November 2021. IMO has long been under pressure to get shipping in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement to keep the increase in global average temperature well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, while pursuing efforts to limit the increase to 1.5°C.

Read More


FibreTech Holdings Ltd v Vero Insurance New Zealand Ltd [2021] NZHC 3104

FibreTech owned an industrial building in Christchurch which was damaged in the 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence. FibreTech made a claim under their material damage policy after the 4 September 2010 earthquake. In November, the High Court’s decision in FibreTech Holdings Ltd v Vero affirmed the importance of release clauses in settlement agreements.

Read More


Scope of Duty II:
Khan V Meadows
[2021] UKSC 21

The UK Supreme Court has issued a judgments on the scope of professional duties that will alter the way in which liability for negligence is analysed in common law countries. The Court has released the decision Khan v Meadows [2021] UKSC 21 in which it applied a new 6-step test to a medical negligence case. We review the judgment with focus on the steps and how the Court applied the test to the question of whether Dr Khan was liable for the birth of a haemophiliac, autistic child.

Read More


SAAMCO Revisited: Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton UL LLP [2021] UKSC 20

The UK Supreme Court recently handed down judgment in the important auditor’s negligence case of Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton UK LLP [2021] UKSC 20. It addressed the scope of a professional’s duty of care including the proper application of the principles in SAAMCO (South Australian Asset Management Corp v York Montague Ltd [1997] AC 191).

Read More


The Nuts and Bolts of Settlement Agreements

McElroys recently attended a LegalWise seminar on settlement agreements. We have prepared a quick refresher on important aspects to be aware of when entering into a settlement agreement.

Read More


FMV v TZB – Sup CT Decision

It is not very often that an employment case reaches the Supreme Court. However, in August this year that Court settled the jurisdiction of the Employment Relations Authority (Authority) versus the High Court, where an employee alleges they have suffered harm as a result of the employer’s negligence.

Read More


Does the 10-year longstop period in the Building Act 2010 apply to claims for contribution against third parties?

The High Court says “no” in the latest in a series of decisions addressing limitation for contribution claims under s17 Law Reform Act 1936.

Read More


Beddoe Orders: McCallum v McCallum [2021] NZCA 237

Anyone involved with claims involving trustees or executors of estates would be well-advised to be aware of the protections provided by Beddoe orders.

Read More


Consumer Guarantees Act and Insurance Services – Lessons from Sleight

Insurers should be mindful of the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) when providing services to insureds under or outside of policies, making representations about services, and as regards the performance of those services (including by their contractors).

Read More


Port Hills Fire Case

In the devastating Port Hills fires of 2017, $11m of claims were made against the adventure park whose negligent actions had contributed to the loss of a number of houses. But does new for old justify a deduction for betterment?

Read More


The Law of Intended Consequences

A decision of the UK Supreme Court in April 2021 addressed the issue of intention in the application of “deliberate acts” exclusion clauses in liability insurance policies.

Read More


Is there a legal burden of proof in employment investigations?

The Court of Appeal addresses the standard of proof imposed on an employer when carrying out workplace investigations. The relevant standard is reasonableness only.

Read More


Creative Development Solutions Limited v Chorus New Zealand Limited [2021] NZCA 178

The Court of Appeal reemphasises the need for negotiating parties to be precise and to take care in their communications with each other. In the right context, a factual statement as to present conduct may amount to an implied promise as to future conduct, sufficient to found an estoppel.

Read More


To whom are duties owed under s136 Companies Act?

The next step in the Mainzeal saga has occurred with the issue of the Court of Appeal’s judgment on 31 March 2021. The directors remain liable, albeit on the basis of a breach of a different statutory duty than that found in the High Court. However, a new approach to compensation for a breach of s136 (duties as to obligations) appears to move away from an assessment of loss suffered by the company, to that suffered by company creditors.

Read More


OHL Ltd v Johns – Spoliation of evidence and date for assessment of loss

The High Court has issued judgment against unprincipled trustees who sold a forest on trust land without the co-owner’s knowledge or consent. The co-owner sought to recover its losses from the trust. Due to the trust’s breach, there was little evidence of the value of the lost forest. The key issues of interest to liability insurers are the date for assessment of loss and the consequence of spoliation of evidence.

Read More


I know you are, you said you are, but what am I?

The Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 substantially updated New Zealand’s health and safety regime. The new legislation maintained the core concept of keeping people free from harm, but shifted the focus from the workplace to a broader concept of how work is conducted.

Read More


Litigation | Class Action

Justice Osborne in the High Court at Christchurch has recently issued two judgments demonstrating the Court’s willingness to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction over class actions when called on to do so. The decisions arise out of the Ross v Southern Response litigation that we have reported on previously.

Read More


DMS Maritime Pty Ltd v Navigators Corporate Underwriters Ltd [2020] QSC 382

Queensland Supreme Court considers whether an excess policy is a marine policy subject to specific marine insurance legislation or a general insurance statute.

Read More


United Kingdom Supreme Court Hands-Down Judgment In COVID-19 Business Interruption Test Case

On 15 January 2021, the United Kingdom Supreme Court handed down its highly anticipated judgment in the COVID-19 Business Interruption (BI) Insurance Test Case.

Read More


Opting For Change. Southern Response v Ross

The Supreme Court has confirmed in Ross that plaintiffs may bring “opt-out” representative actions. Prior to this, only “opt-in” representative actions had been allowed by the courts. An “opt-out” action may be brought on behalf of a defined “class” so that all persons falling within the definition of that class will be treated as plaintiffs unless they actively opt out of the proceedings.

Read More


Who Pays For Defective Repairs? – Sleight v IAG

The Sleight’s Christchurch property was significantly damaged during the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence (CES). IAG insured the property. The reinstatement standard in the policy was “to a condition as similar as possible to when it was new”.

Read More


Body Corporate 378351 v Auckland Council & Ors [2020] NZHC 1701

In October 2019, Bell AJ declined to strike out the Retro Apartments Owners’ claims for non-weathertightness defects as it was time-barred under the Building Act longstop. Bell AJ’s judgment was an unabashed policy decision. Bell AJ and the Court of Appeal subsequently declined leave to appeal the strike out judgment due to the proximity of trial.

Read More


The Debut of clarity for director’s duties, or further uncertainty?

Mr Cooper was the sole director of Debut Homes Ltd (Debut), a residential property developer. By the end of October 2012 Debut was in real financial difficulty. The IRD put the company into liquidation in March 2014. Debut’s liquidators issued proceedings against Mr Cooper for breaches of ss 131, 135 & 136 Companies Act 1993 (CA).

Read More


Taylor v Asteron Life Ltd [2020] NZCA 354 – Post contractual obligations of utmost good faith

Mr Taylor, a self-employed insurance broker, held an income protection insurance policy with Asteron. In 2010, Mr Taylor became sick and was unable to work. He made a claim, which Asteron accepted. Asteron paid Mr Taylor total disability benefits (TDB) until September 2014. It then suspended payments because Mr Taylor would not provide financial information Asteron required to assess his loss of earnings.

Read More


English High Court Delivers Judgment In FCA Business Interruption Test Case

On 15 September 2020, the English High Court delivered its highly anticipated judgment in the Financial Conducts Authority (FCA) test case concerning COVID-19 business interruption claims.

Read More


Southern Response Earthquake Services Ltd v Dodds [2020] NZCA 395

Context is Everything: An insurer’s unqualified and wrong statements about policy entitlements lead to liability for misrepresentations and misleading and deceptive conduct

Read More


Privacy Act 2020 to come into force on 1 December 2020

The Privacy Act 2020 will come into force on 1 December 2020. The reforms in this legislation aim to strengthen privacy protections and encourage businesses and organisations to identify risks and prevent incidents relating to personal data that may cause harm.

Read More


Shining a light for NZ? UK test case on Business Interruption claims and Covid-19

The Covid-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on many businesses across the country. It has brought into sharp focus the question of available insurance cover for losses under Business Interruption (BI) insurance policies and the extent of that cover.

Read More


A Sting in the Tail? 127 Hobson Street Limited v Honey Bees Preschool Limited

The Supreme Court has delivered an important decision on the law of penalties in 127 Hobson Street Limited v Honey Bees Preschool Limited [2020] NZSC 53. Honey Bees Preschool Limited (Honey Bees) was a preschool that leased premises from 127 Hobson Street (Landlord). One of the obligations under the lease was for the Landlord to provide a second elevator in the building to facilitate access to Honey Bees’ business on the fifth floor.

Read More


Defective repairs: to pay or not to pay – how Evans v IAG let us down

The purpose of the Earthquake Tribunal is to provide an alternative path to resolve insurance disputes between policyholders, insurers and EQC that is “speedy, flexible and cost effective”. When a question of law arises, the Tribunal may refer that question to the High Court for its opinion, following which, the Tribunal must continue the hearing in accordance with that opinion.

Read More


Attorney-General v Strathboss Kiwifruit Ltd

During lockdown the Court of Appeal released its decision in Attorney-General v Strathboss Kiwifruit Ltd. The Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s decision regarding the liability of MAF to the growers. Andrea Challis explains the decision and the challenges in bringing novel negligence claims against public authorities

Read More


Really? The Final Chapter in Lodge v Commerce Commission [2020] NZSC 25

The Supreme Court has written the final chapter in the Lodge/TradeMe anti-competition case. It found there was an understanding between realtors to pass on the TradeMe fee to vendors rather than absorb that cost internally.

Read More


Mexican Stand-off: Frustrated Contracts and the Lockdown

What are parties’ rights and obligations where the lockdown prevented both sides from performing their obligations under a contract?

Read More


COVID and Court Delays

Any expectation by counsel or witnesses that extensive adjournments to current fixtures will be granted due to delays caused by the COVID pandemic have been put to rest with a recent High Court decision.

Read More


Leota v Parcel Express Limited & Anor [2020] NZEmpC 61

The Employment Court has held that a courier driver engaged under an independent contractor’s agreement is at law an employee, and entitled to the protections and benefits of the Employment Relations, Wages Protection, Holidays, and Parental leave legislation.

Read More


Take it to the Limit

A shipowner’s right to limit liability is a well-known feature of international maritime conventions. The right to limit liability exists unless it can be proved that the loss resulted from the shipowner’s “personal act or omission, committed with the intent to cause such loss, or recklessly and with knowledge that such loss would probably result”.

Read More


Making the most of expert evidence

Judges often need to make determinations on matters requiring the application of expertise or specialised knowledge. An expert gives opinion evidence to the Court on a technical, scientific or other specialist issue. Experts give evidence of opinion, not fact, based on their knowledge, training or experience.

Read More


When is a transfer to the EQ Tribunal not in the interests of justice?

In the recent decision of Bolstad v EQC & Tower Insurance [2019] NZHC 3283 the High Court declined to transfer a proceeding to the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal (Tribunal).

Read More


Travelers Insurance Co Ltd v XYZ Case

Following an earlier summary of the litigation our Senior Associate Darren Turnbull takes an in-depth look at the decision and the implications for liability insurers in New Zealand.

Read More


Frucor Beverages Limited v Blumberg

On 11 November 2019, the New Zealand Court of Appeal delivered an important judgment – the first case of its kind to be decided by the New Zealand Court of Appeal. The appeal was from a decision of the High Court that insurers of at-fault drivers are liable to pay third party replacement hire car costs that not-at-fault drivers agreed to pay to hire replacement vehicles, while their damaged vehicle is being repaired.

Read More


Travelers Insurance Co Ltd v XYZ

On 30 October 2019, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom delivered an important judgment (Travelers Insurance Co Ltd v XYZ) which addressed the question whether a liability insurer should be subject to a non-party costs order as a result of the role it played in litigation.

Read More


Leaky Building Exclusions: Court of Appeal says wait and see

In 2013 the Body Corporate and unit owners of the Waterfront Apartments in Napier issued proceedings against the Napier City Council (Council) and other defendants alleging that their properties had been constructed with watertightness, fire protection and structural defects.

Read More


Bank of Queensland v AIG Australia Ltd [2019] NSWCA 190

In a recent decision from the New South Wales Court of Appeal, Bank of Queensland v AIG Australia Ltd [2019] NSWCA 190, the Court overturned a decision of the Supreme Court which considered whether there were multiple claims under a Civil Liability Insurance Policy and, if so, whether they should be aggregated.

Read More


Ross v Southern Response [2019] NZCA 431

In May 2018 Mr & Mrs Ross (Ross) issued proceedings against Southern Response Earthquake Services Ltd (SR) claiming that SR provided incomplete information relevant to the settlement of their residential earthquake claim. The causes of action largely reflect those recently determined in Dodds v Southern Response Earthquake Services Ltd [2019] NZHC 2016.

Read More


Dodds v Southern Response Earthquake Services Limited [2019] NZHC

Southern Response had thought it had settled the Dodds’ insurance claim, in December 2013. It had provided the Dodds with the costing to rebuild their home that the Dodds were entitled to be paid under their policy. But it did not provide them details of the costs they were not entitled to.

Read More


90 Day Trials and Payments in Lieu of Notice

Trial periods can be useful tools for employers to assess whether an employee can meet employment expectations and is the right fit. As of 6 May 2019, they are permissible only for employers who employ fewer than 20 employees

Read More


Robt. Jones Holdings Ltd v McCullagh [2019] NZSC 86

Bob Jones was in the news again recently, not as might be expected for an incendiary newspaper column or an airline fracas, but the more mundane business of voidable insolvent transactions and another twist in the sorry saga of Blue Chip NZ.

Read More


Busby Trust v IAG NZ Limited

When will a Court transfer a proceeding to the Canterbury Earthquake Insurance Tribunal?

Read More


Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal (CEIT) has been launched!

The CEIT, chaired by former District Court Judge Chris Somerville, has been established with the objective of resolving longstanding Canterbury earthquake insurance disputes in a “speedy, flexible and cost-effective way”.

Read More


Disclaimers Won’t Exclude Liability For Breached Undertakings

In Bushline Trustees Limited v ANZ & England [2019] NZCA 245, the Court of Appeal has reversed the High Court judgment.

Read More


Xu v IAG Assignment of Reinstatement Rights

The entitlement to replacement benefits is conditional on reinstatement by the insured and cannot be assigned.

Read More


You shoal not pass!

The English Admiralty Court recently released a judgment illustrating the application of established principles regarding seaworthiness following the grounding of a cargo ship. For the first time, a Court held that a defective passage plan prepared prior to the commencement of the voyage rendered the vessel unseaworthy.

Read More


Dual Retainers and Conflicts of Interest

A claim is made against an insured, who turns to its insurer for cover. The insurer instructs a lawyer to act in the defence of the claim. Normally this tri-partite relationship works well, because there is a common interest in defeating the claim or reducing the damage. However, tensions can arise due to the differing interests and obligations of the parties.

Read More


Is the ship owner liable for losses to cargo interests even if the crew deliberately lights the fire – the “Lady M”

The UK Court Appeal has recently again considered the Hague Visby Rules and in particular the meaning of the potential defence of Fire and the burden of proof on Carrier. In this case a fire was stared deliberately by the Chief Engineer, and Cargo interests sought to say the deliberate nature of the crew’s actions meant the Carrier could not rely on the fire defence.

Read More


When is enough, enough? Broker and insurer’s duties to inform insureds

What duties do a broker and an insurer owe to an insured to tell the insured about the extent of their insurance cover and if that cover is adequate for their changing needs or to cover their claim? Would it be enough to place the insurance requested by the insured and tell the insured?

Read More


What do I have to do to cancel this policy?

Sometimes, an insured does something that breaches the fundamental obligation of good faith that underpins all insurance contracts. In those circumstances, the insurer may wish to bring an end to the insurance contract and its obligations.

Read More


Written out of the will

Mr Sandman sued Wilson McKay for dishonest assistance. He alleged that Wilson McKay had knowingly assisted the daughter of, and an attorney for the testator in producing a will that significantly reduced the benefits that were provided for him in a prior will.

Read More


When should what the parties say be used to interpret contracts?

If negotiations are the evidence of what a contract means, why write the contract at all?

Read More


Sexual Harassment In The Workplace – Did You Know?

On the topic of sexual harassment what usually comes to mind is an employer, employee or client/customer making sexually suggestive remarks to an employee, or touching another employee inappropriately.

Read More


What is insurance and why do we still not agree about that?

Globe Church Incorporated v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd [2019] NSWCA 27 the NSW Court of Appeal determines this issue in Australia.

Read More


Burden of Proof in Cargo Claims under the Hague and Hague-Visby Rules

Volcafe v CSAV [2018] UKSC 61 – Burden of Proof in Cargo Claims under the Hague and Hague-Visby Rules – The Supreme Court in the UK clarifies the Legal Test.

Read More


Craft beer and craftier words: sometimes beer is just beer as words are just words

Malthouse Ltd v Rangatira Ltd [2018] NZCA 621 (20 December 2018) the Court of Appeal clarifies the role of “commercial sense” in contract interpretation.

Read More


Insurance Council/IBANZ Marine Workshop

The workshop provided an opportunity to keep abreast of topical issues and meet with colleagues across the marine and insurance industry.

Read More


When Ships Collide

Which collision rules apply when one vessel is simply drifting, awaiting a pilot?

Read More


To Repair Rubble or Not to Repair Rubble

A recent High Court decision, gives some guidance to insurers and insureds on what “when new” vs “as new” policies require of insurers and what repairs are required to rubble foundations

Read More


McElroys Wins Insurance Specialist Law Firm of the Year

McElroys is proud to announce that it has won the Insurance Specialist Law Firm of the Year award.

Read More


Liability for Wasted Costs when Withdrawing as Counsel

The High Court in Bligh v Earthquake Commission [2018] NZHC 2392 has quashed orders that a solicitor pays costs incurred after the solicitor withdrew as counsel.

Read More


Supreme Court’s Decision in Feltex Litigation

On 15 August 2018, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in the long-running Feltex litigation.1 This was a representative action brought by Eric Houghton on behalf of approximately 3,600 shareholders.

Read More


Sentencing in the Age of HSWA 2015

Three companies appealed against sentences imposed on them for breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 (HSWA), Stumpmaster, Tasman Tanning and Niagra Sawmilling.

Read More


Invercargill City Council v Southland Indoor Leisure Centre Charitable Trust

In September 2010 the Southland Stadium roof partially collapsed following a heavy snowstorm. The Stadium required extensive repairs costing over $15 million. Southland Indoor Leisure Centre Charitable Trust (Trust), the owner, brought proceedings against AS Major, the engineer responsible for the Stadium’s structural design, and Invercargill City Council (Council).

Read More


Prattley v Vero – Supreme Court

Prattley owned a commercial building in Worcester Street, Christchurch. It was insured for indemnity value only with a sum insured of $1,605,000. It was damaged in the 4 September 2010, 26 December 2010 and 22 February 2011 earthquakes.

Read More


Trustees Executors v Fund Managers Canterbury

Trustees Executors Ltd (TEL) issued proceedings against Fund Managers Canterbury Ltd (FMC), its directors and officers, and auditors, in the Wellington High Court. The claim against FMC and the D&Os concerned alleged negligence and breach of the Fair Trading Act arising from lending decisions in conjunction with the Canterbury Mortgage Trust Group Investment Fund (CMT) which was wound up in 2009.

Read More


Montecillo Trust v
Stevenson Brown Ltd – High Court
Jardboranir HF trading as Iceland Drilling v Summit Hydraulic Solutions Ltd – High Court

In the first case the Montecillo Trust engaged Mr Rutter for the purposes of design, project management and supervision for the construction of a rest home in Dunedin in 2005.

Read More


Prattley v Vero – Court of Appeal

The settlement agreement should not be re-opened as the mistakes alleged by Prattley were the kind contemplated by the parties and therefore covered by the release clause.

Read More


Hotchin v The New Zealand Guardian Trust Co Ltd

Mark Hotchin, a director of Hanover Finance Ltd and other collapsed finance companies (referred to collectively as Hanover), faced proceedings by the Financial Markets Authority (FMA). The FMA alleged that the Hanover directors, including Hotchin, distributed offer documents containing untrue statements on which investors relied when purchasing securities or rolling over their investments.

Read More