Counsel: A G Hazelton for Plaintiffs
D A Webb and M H O Maling for First Defendants
No appearance for Second Defendant
M R Sherwood-King for Third Defendant/First Third Party
M Atkinson for Second Third Party

Judgment: 6 May 2013

JUDGMENT OF WILLIAMS J

In accordance with r 11.5, I direct the Registrar to endorse this judgment with the delivery time of 12:30pm on the 6th of May 2013.

KEITH MICHAEL NEWTON, JOANNE LESLEY DAVEY AND SCOTT MORAN AS TRUSTEES OF THE DAVEY-NEWTON FAMILY TRUST V WAYNE PETER STEWART AND LEE-BIN TEE HC WN CIV-2010-
485-2116 [6 May 2013]

Contents

Introduction ............................................................................................................. [1] The facts ................................................................................................................... [5]

The first sale: Hastie to Stewart/Tee ....................................................................[5] Repairs ..................................................................................................................[7] Second sale: Stewart/Tee to Newton/Davey .......................................................[32] Aftermath.............................................................................................................[44] Proceedings and summary judgment ..................................................................[46]

The issues ............................................................................................................... [52] Between plaintiffs and first defendants ...............................................................[52] Between plaintiffs and second defendant ............................................................[55] Between plaintiffs and third defendant (Mr Hastie)............................................[57] Between first defendants and first third party (Mr Hastie) .................................[58] Between first defendants and second third party (Mr Lyttle)..............................[59]

Expert evidence ..................................................................................................... [61] Plaintiffs ..............................................................................................................[62] First defendants...................................................................................................[67] Third defendant/first third party..........................................................................[69] Expert agreements ...............................................................................................[71]

Between plaintiffs and first defendants............................................................... [75] Privity ..................................................................................................................[75] Warranty ..............................................................................................................[80]

Relevant provisions ............................................................................................... [81] Arguments.............................................................................................................. [94]
Analysis .................................................................................................................. [98] Loss ................................................................................................................... [115] Causation ..........................................................................................................[126] Quantum ............................................................................................................[134]

Between plaintiffs and second defendant (Mr Hammond) ............................. [139] Between plaintiffs and third defendant (Mr Hastie)........................................ [157]

Limitations ........................................................................................................[158] Arguments..........................................................................................................[159] Analysis .............................................................................................................[160] Developer? ........................................................................................................[167] Analysis .............................................................................................................[170] Breach and causation ........................................................................................[171]

Between first defendants and first third party (Mr Hastie) ............................ [179] Limitations ........................................................................................................[180] Duty and breach ................................................................................................[183] Causation and contribution ..............................................................................[184]

Between first defendants and second third party (Mr Lyttle) ........................ [188] Duty ...................................................................................................................[190] Res judicata .......................................................................................................[199]

Conclusion............................................................................................................ [200] Between the plaintiffs and the first defendants .................................................[200] Between the plaintiffs and the second defendant (Mr Hammond) ....................[204] Between the plaintiffs and the third defendant (Mr Hastie) ..............................[208] Between the first defendants and the first third party (Mr Hastie) ...................[210] Between the first defendants and the second third party (Mr Lyttle) ................[212]

Introduction

[1] 2 Huxley Grove, Churton Park, Wellington is a leaky home. The owners are the plaintiffs, Keith Newton, his wife, Joanne Davey and their lawyer, Scott Moran. Together they are trustees of the Davey-Newton Family Trust. They now sue Wayne Stewart and Lee-Bin Tee, the couple from whom they purchased in 2004. They rely on the vendors’ warranty that all necessary consents had been obtained by Mr Stewart and Ms Tee for repair work they had done on the dwelling prior to the plaintiffs’ purchase.

[2] They also sue…

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 Newton v Stewart

Details

AGLC: Newton v Stewart [2013] NZHC 970
Case: [2013] NZHC 970
Decision Date: 6 May 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Newton v Stewart was heard in the High Court of New Zealand and involves a dispute over a leaky home at 2 Huxley Grove, Churton Park, Wellington. The plaintiffs, Keith Newton, Joanne Davey, and Scott Moran as trustees of the Davey-Newton Family Trust, sued the first defendants, Wayne Stewart and Lee-Bin Tee, for breach of warranty regarding necessary consents for repair work done on the dwelling prior to the plaintiffs' purchase. The plaintiffs also sued the second defendant, James Hammond, and the third defendant, Andrew Hastie, for negligence. The first defendants issued third-party notices against Hastie, VCNZ Limited, and John Lyttle. The court had to decide various legal issues, including privity, warranty, breach, causation, and quantum.

The court found that the plaintiffs had standing to sue the first defendants as the nomination of the trustees was properly communicated. However, the claim against the first defendants failed because the repair work on the plant-ons did not require a building consent, and thus, there was no breach of the warranty. Even if this was incorrect, the damages claimed were too remote, and there was insufficient proof of causation. The court also found that the second defendant, James Hammond, was negligent, but the claim failed due to lack of causation. The claim against the third defendant, Andrew Hastie, failed because it was time-barred.

Regarding the first defendants' claims against the first and second third parties, the court found that the claim against the first third party, Andrew Hastie, was not time-barred, and Hastie owed an independent duty to ensure that Building Act 1991 requirements were complied with. However, the claim failed because the first defendants did not heed the warnings about the need to determine the source of the leak, which eclipsed Hastie's breach. The claim against the second third party, John Lyttle, failed because Lyttle did not owe a duty of care to the first defendants, and causation was not established. The doctrine of res judicata did not apply as the decision of the previous judge had been appealed. Costs were reserved.

Orders