David Paul Halford v R F Coughlan& Associates

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 35/2010
[2010] NZSC 80

BETWEENDAVID PAUL HALFORD AND BLUE SKY HOLDINGS LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) AS TRUSTEE OF THE AUCKLAND RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TRUST

Applicants

ANDR F COUGHLAN & ASSOCIATES

First Respondent
ANDNORTH SHORE CITY COUNCIL

Second Respondent

ANDROBERT HENRY GRAHAM BARTON AND KAY BARTON

Third Respondents

Court:Elias CJ, Blanchard and McGrath JJ
Counsel:M C Josephson for Applicants

A Maclean for First Respondent
D Goddard QC for Second Respondent

Judgment:13 July 2010

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs of $2,500 to the First Respondent.

REASONS
[1] The first ground which the applicants propose to argue is that the designer of the building, the first respondent, should have been found liable for inadequate details in the plans, regardless of whether the details might have been available to the applicants from other sources. However, there are concurrent findings of fact below that in the circumstances of the case the plans and specifications were not negligently prepared by the first respondent. The decision turned on the particular facts of the case and gives rise to no wider principle. The criteria for leave are not met.
[2] The second proposed ground of appeal is that practical completion certificates were negligently issued by the first respondent. However, in circumstances where, as has been held below, it has not been shown that the certificates were relied upon by the applicants, we do not consider that this ground is arguable. It has not been shown that the certificates were causative of any loss to the applicants.
Solicitors:
Grimshaw & Co, Auckland for Applicants
A Maclean, Auckland for First Respondents
Heaney & Co, Auckland for Second Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand considered an application for leave to appeal brought by David Paul Halford and Blue Sky Holdings Ltd (in liquidation) against R F Coughlan & Associates, North Shore City Council, and Robert Henry Graham Barton and Kay Barton. The applicants sought to challenge the findings of the High Court, which had dismissed their claim for damages against the respondents. The applicants argued that the designer of the building, R F Coughlan & Associates, should have been found liable for inadequate details in the plans and that practical completion certificates were negligently issued. The court was tasked with determining whether the applicants' proposed grounds for appeal met the criteria for leave to appeal.

The court considered the first proposed ground of appeal, which was that the designer of the building should have been found liable for inadequate details in the plans. The court found that the High Court had made concurrent findings of fact that the plans and specifications were not negligently prepared by the designer. The decision turned on the particular facts of the case and gave rise to no wider principle. The court also found that the applicants had not demonstrated that the criteria for leave to appeal were met.

The court then considered the second proposed ground of appeal, which was that practical completion certificates were negligently issued by the designer. The court found that the High Court had held that it had not been shown that the certificates were relied upon by the applicants. The court also found that it had not been shown that the certificates were causative of any loss to the applicants. Therefore, the court did not consider that this ground was arguable.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs of $2,500 to the first respondent. The court found that the applicants had not demonstrated that the criteria for leave to appeal were met and that the proposed grounds for appeal were not arguable. The applicants were ordered to pay costs to the first respondent.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established