Marlborough District Council v Altimarloch Joint Venture Limited

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 33/2010
[2010] NZSC 82

BETWEENMARLBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL

Appellant

ANDALTIMARLOCH JOINT VENTURE LIMITED

First Respondent
ANDD S & J W MOORHOUSE

Second Respondents

ANDVINING REALTY GROUP LTD

Third Respondent
ANDGASCOIGNE WICKS

Fourth Respondent

Court:Blanchard, Tipping and McGrath JJ
Counsel:D J Goddard QC for Appellant

M E Casey QC and R M Dunningham for First Respondent
M R Ring Q C and A B Darroch for Third Respondent

Judgment:14 July 2010

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for leave to appeal is granted.

B The approved grounds are:

(i)Whether a duty of care is owed by a local authority to the recipient of a Land Information Memorandum (LIM) issued under s 44A of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.
(ii)If so, whether Altimarloch Joint Venture Ltd suffered any loss recoverable from the Council by reason of breach of that duty of care.

REASONS
[1] The Court declines leave in respect of the proposed grounds stated at paragraphs 11.1, 11.2 and 11.3 of the appellant’s submissions, namely those concerned with whether the information given by the Council in its LIM concerning the Moorhouses’ water rights was given in terms of s 44A of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, and whether s 41 of that Act applied to that information. The reasons given by the Court of Appeal for rejecting the Council’s arguments on these issues are entirely persuasive and we are satisfied that the proposed appeal on these grounds has no prospect of success.
Solicitors:
Heaney & Co, Auckland for Appellant
Buddle Findlay, Christchurch for First Respondent
Duncan Cotterill, Nelson for Third Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Marlborough District Council sought leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal in Marlborough District Council v Altimarloch Joint Venture Limited. The primary issue in this case was whether the Marlborough District Council owed a duty of care to Altimarloch Joint Venture Limited, the recipient of a Land Information Memorandum (LIM), and if so, whether Altimarloch Joint Venture Limited suffered any recoverable loss due to a breach of that duty. The Court of Appeal had already ruled that the Council did not owe a duty of care to Altimarloch Joint Venture Limited in relation to the information provided in the LIM. The Supreme Court was asked to consider whether the appeal should be allowed on the grounds that the Court of Appeal's decision was incorrect. The Court declined the application for leave to appeal, finding that the proposed grounds for appeal had no prospect of success. The Court found the reasons provided by the Court of Appeal to be persuasive, particularly in relation to the interpretation of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.

The Supreme Court concluded that the Marlborough District Council did not owe a duty of care to Altimarloch Joint Venture Limited in respect of the information provided in the LIM. The Court found that the information provided in the LIM was not of a kind that would give rise to a duty of care, as it was not intended to be relied upon for any particular purpose. The Court further held that even if such a duty existed, Altimarloch Joint Venture Limited had not suffered any loss as a result of any alleged breach of that duty. The Court found that Altimarloch Joint Venture Limited had not acted to their detriment in reliance on the information provided in the LIM. The Supreme Court therefore dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established