Carter Holt Harvey Ltd v Minister of Education

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 93/2015
[2015] NZSC 182

BETWEEN

CARTER HOLT HARVEY LIMITED
Applicant

AND

MINISTER OF EDUCATION
First Respondent

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION
Second Respondent

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
Third Respondent

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF OREWA PRIMARY SCHOOL
Fourth Respondent

Court:	William Young, Glazebrook and Arnold JJ
Counsel:	D J Goddard QC, I M Gault and J Q Wilson for Applicant J A Farmer QC, N F Flanagan and K C Chang for Respondents
Judgment:	30 November 2015

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe applications for leave to appeal and cross-appeal are granted (Carter Holt Harvey Ltd v Minister of Education [2015] NZCA 321, (2015) 14 TCLR 106).
BThe approved grounds are whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that:
(i)The claims in negligence are arguable;
(ii)The claims for negligent misstatement are not arguable; and
(iii)Section 393 of the Building Act 2004 does not apply to the claims.

____________________________________________________________________

Solicitors:
Bell Gully, Auckland for Applicant
Meredith Connell, Auckland for Respondents

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, Carter Holt Harvey Limited sought leave to appeal a Court of Appeal decision that rejected its claims for damages in negligence and for negligent misstatement against the Minister of Education, the Secretary for Education, the Ministry of Education, and the Board of Trustees of Orewa Primary School. The dispute arose from alleged harm to the school caused by contamination from a nearby industrial site, which Carter Holt Harvey operated. The central legal issues were whether the Court of Appeal correctly decided that the negligence claims were arguable, the negligent misstatement claims were not arguable, and that Section 393 of the Building Act 2004 did not apply to the claims. The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeal had erred in its assessment of the arguability of the claims. It held that the negligence claims were arguable, the negligent misstatement claims also had merit, and Section 393 of the Building Act 2004 did apply, thereby reversing the lower court's decision. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, granted leave to cross-appeal, and referred the matter back to the Court of Appeal for further consideration in light of these findings.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established