Buchanan v Tasman District Council
[2024] NZSC 103
•20 August 2024
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA |
| SC 49/2024 [2024] NZSC 103 |
| BETWEEN | LOUISE BUCHANAN, KEITH MARSHALL AND ALISTAIR DONALD AS TRUSTEES OF THE BUCHANAN MARSHALL FAMILY TRUST |
| AND | TASMAN DISTRICT COUNCIL |
| Court: | Glazebrook, Ellen France and Kós JJ |
Counsel: | A R Shaw and L C L Yong for Applicants |
Judgment: | 20 August 2024 |
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
ALeave to appeal is granted (Tasman District Council v Louise Buchanan, Keith Marshall and Alistair Donald as Trustees of the Buchanan Marshall Family Trust [2024] NZCA 133).
BThe approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that there was no duty of care owed by the respondent to the appellants while carrying out and making statements in relation to pool inspections under the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS
The applicants seek reinstatement of the orders set out in [131(b)‑(d)] of the judgment of the High Court.[1] They have confirmed by memorandum of 29 July 2024 that they do not challenge the findings of the Court of Appeal in relation to declaratory relief.
[1]Buchanan v Tasman District Council [2023] NZHC 53 (Palmer J).
The respondent, by memorandum of 5 August 2024, confirmed that it does not intend to support the judgment on other grounds, including limitation grounds.[2]
[2]This means that, should the appeal be allowed, the High Court findings on limitation will stand. We note that, contrary to [4] of the respondent’s memorandum, the Court of Appeal only made obiter comments and did not make binding findings with regard to the longstop limitation period.
Solicitors:
C & F Legal Ltd, Nelson for Applicants
Rice Speir, Auckland for Respondent
0