Craike v Tilsley - [2012] NZHC 2260

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2010-404-002846 [2012] NZHC 2260

BETWEEN DAVID JOHN CRAIKE AND JAYNE ANNETTE CRAIKE
First Plaintiffs

ANDSHOWFIELDS EQUESTRIAN CENTRE LIMITED
Second Plaintiff

ANDROBERT TILSLEY First Defendant

ANDS D WATSON LIMITED Second Defendant

ANDSTEWART DAVID WATSON Third Defendant

ANDEARL SAMUEL WATSON Fourth Defendant

ANDROBERT WATSON Fifth Defendant

Hearing: 2 - 6 and 10 July 2012

Counsel: NW Woods for Plaintiffs
PJP Grace and SL Robertson for First Defendant
P Webb for Second to Fifth Defendants

Judgment: 3 September 2012

JUDGMENT OF ASHER J

This judgment was delivered by me on Monday, 3 September 2012 at 5pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
Rice Craig, DX EP 76506, Papakura, Auckland. Email: Neville.woods@ricecraig.co.nz
PJP Grace, PO Box 1144, Pukekohe, Email: pgrace@xtra.co.nz
P Webb, PO Box 76461, Manukau, Auckland. Email: peter@parkviewchambers.co.nz

DAVID JOHN CRAIKE AND JAYNE ANNETTE CRAIKE V ROBERT TILSLEY HC AK CIV-2010-404-
002846 [3 September 2012]

Table of Contents

Para No

Introduction [1] The claim [20] The role of Mr Tilsley [32] Mr Tilsley’s specific actions

The grass area [47]

The arena surface [70] The arena drains [80] Miscellaneous slips [86] Causation [91] The grass area [104] The arena surface [111] The arena drains [112] Miscellaneous slips [113] Actual costs to create working areas [114] Quantum of loss [118] Contributory negligence [120]
Other claims
The alleged $70,000 overpayment

(para 34(b) of the amended statement of claim) [121]

The alleged $10,486.13 overpayment
(para 24(c) of the amended statement of claim) [126] Further claims [129] The parties [131] Result [132] Costs [133]

Introduction

[1] Jayne Craike is a distinguished equestrian, with significant skill, experience and reputation in sports and dressage. In 2006 with her husband David she embarked on a project to develop a significant equestrian centre in a property they had acquired at Springhill Road, Te Kauwhata. Despite their great hopes the project ended up a disaster, and the Craikes were forced to sell at a heavy loss. In these proceedings they claim that a significant cause of the disaster was the failure of the first defendant Robert Tilsley, a consulting engineer they used for aspects of the project, to meet his contractual duties to oversee the project with reasonable care and skill. They claim from Mr Tilsley their full losses on the development which they assert are $1,326,847.10.

[2] Prior to 2006 the Craikes had owned and run an equestrian centre at Karaka known as “Showfields”. In 2006 they purchased 19.6565 hectares at 389 Springhill Road, Hampton Downs near Te Kauwhata. The land was hilly but there were flat sections on the top. The Craikes envisaged an equestrian centre and complex which would have a flat park-like setting with performance areas and tree islands and pathways to the centre facilities. They wanted the centre to attract international competition and to be a significant New Zealand equestrian centre.

[3] The Craikes took preliminary advice on a development from the engineering firm, Tonkin and Taylor Ltd, who provided initial drawings. The…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Craike v Tilsley

Details

AGLC: Craike v Tilsley [2012] NZHC 2260
Case: [2012] NZHC 2260
Decision Date: 3 September 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Craike v Tilsley, the plaintiffs, David and Jayne Craike, sought to recover their losses of $1,326,847.10 from the defendant, Robert Tilsley, a consulting engineer. The Craikes claimed that Tilsley breached his contractual duties and was negligent in his supervision of the equestrian centre development project they undertook. The High Court of New Zealand dismissed the Craikes' claims against Tilsley. The court found that Tilsley's role as a project manager was limited to the earthworks aspect of the project. The court held that Tilsley did not negligently advise or supervise the project, and therefore, he was not liable for the Craikes' losses. The court also found that the alleged defects in the project did not contribute to the loss of value of the property or the failure of the business. Consequently, the Craikes' claims for damages, including loss of profit, general damages, and overpayments, were also dismissed. The court ordered that Tilsley is entitled to costs on a 2B basis, conditional on no submissions being filed within 14 days.

Orders