King v Edwards Valuations Limited - [2025] NZHC 1943

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2024-404-1251

[2025] NZHC 1943

UNDER the Fair Trading Act 1986, the Contract and Commercial Act 2017 and the tort of negligence

IN THE MATTER

of claims for negligent misstatement, breach of contract and breach of s 9 of the Fair Tracing Act 1986

BETWEEN

ANNA IRENE IVY KING

Plaintiff

AND

EDWARDS VALUATIONS LIMITED

First Defendant

KIM McKENZIE STONE

Second Defendant

Hearing: 7 July 2025

Appearances:

K B Arthur for Plaintiff

J C Dymock and S O Alomar for Defendants

Judgment:

15 July 2025

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE PAULSEN

This judgment was delivered by me on 15 July 2025 at 3.30 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

KING v EDWARDS VALUATIONS LIMITED [2025] NZHC 1943 [15 July 2025]

[1] The plaintiff is suing the defendants in respect of a valuation report prepared by the first defendant of 28 April 2023 for a property in Auckland (the property). The second defendant is the director of the first defendant.

[2] The plaintiff alleges the valuation report substantially overvalued the property, and that in reliance upon it she settled her relationship property affairs with her husband. There are causes of action against the defendants in negligence, breach of contract and under the Fair Trading Act 1986.

[3] From my reading of the pleadings the defendants say the valuation report was not prepared for the plaintiff but solely for her husband, they did not contract with her for preparation of the report, owed her no duty of care and made no misleading or deceptive representations in respect to it, that the report was not prepared in breach of contract or negligently, that it was not relied upon by the plaintiff, and she suffered no loss.

[4] There are applications before me by both the plaintiff and the defendants arising from discovery. Each party opposes the other’s application but the issues between them are now much reduced and can be dealt with briefly.

Background

[5] The property in issue comprised in part a vacant area, referred to as Lot 1, and another part with a residential dwelling, referred to as Lot 2. The plaintiff and her husband intended to subdivide the property into these two lots.

[6]The first defendant had valued Lot 1 in July 2022 at $1.35 million.

[7] In April 2023, the first defendant was instructed to provide a valuation of Lots 1 and 2 as if the subdivision was complete. The initial approach to the first defendant was made by the plaintiff’s husband. The plaintiff says the approach was on behalf of them both but the defendants disagree.

[8] On 8 May 2023, the first defendant issued its valuation report. The valuation for Lot 1 was $1.35 million and Lot 2 was $3 million, on the basis that the subdivision

was complete. In fact, the subdivision was not completed until September 2023, but there is no dispute that…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read King v Edwards Valuations Limited and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NZHC 1943
Decision Date: 15 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand heard a case between Anna Irene Ivy King and Edwards Valuations Limited, with Kim McKenzie Stone also named as a defendant. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants' valuation report of a property in Auckland substantially overvalued the property, leading her to suffer losses after settling her property affairs with her husband. The defendants denied the allegations, asserting that the valuation report was not prepared for the plaintiff, and they did not owe her a duty of care. The case involved claims of negligent misstatement, breach of contract, and a violation of the Fair Trading Act 1986.

The court addressed several issues, including the relevance of certain documents and the defendants' claim that the plaintiff had not fully disclosed all relevant correspondence between her and her husband regarding the valuation. The plaintiff sought discovery of documents related to the defendants' 2022 valuation, arguing they were relevant to the 2023 valuation. However, the court found these documents were not directly relevant to the current proceeding. The defendants claimed the plaintiff had not disclosed all correspondence about the valuation, and the court agreed that further documents might exist, ordering the plaintiff to conduct an additional search and file an affidavit detailing the results.

Additionally, the defendants argued that the plaintiff's affidavit of documents did not sufficiently describe the roles of the lawyers listed, potentially affecting claims of privilege. The plaintiff explained that some of those listed were not lawyers but third parties with whom her lawyers had corresponded. The court found the plaintiff's explanation adequate and dismissed this part of the defendants' application. Lastly, the defendants sought inspection of the unredacted separation agreement between the plaintiff and her husband, arguing it was necessary for them to prepare their case. The court agreed, setting aside the plaintiff's claim to confidentiality and ordering her to make the unredacted agreement available for inspection.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's application and allowed the defendants' application in part, ordering the plaintiff to file a further affidavit of documents regarding undisclosed correspondence and to make the unredacted separation agreement available for inspection. The court also set aside the plaintiff's claim to confidentiality regarding the separation agreement and directed that costs on the applications be reserved unless either party sought costs within a specified timeframe.

Orders