Legal Research
Cases
Rintoul Group Ltd v Robson

Rintoul Group Ltd v Robson

Case [2019] NZHC 21 23 January 2019

Jurisdiction

Appeal

Res Judicata

Misfeasance in Public Office

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Contract Law

Public Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CIV-2018-488-2

[2019] NZHC 21

BETWEEN
RINTOUL GROUP LIMITED

Plaintiff

AND

JACQUELINE ROBSON

Defendant

Hearing: 28 November 2018

Appearances:

Nathan Gedye QC and Richard Mark for the Plaintiff Frana Divich and Charlotta Harpur for the Defendant

Judgment:

23 January 2019

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE R M BELL

This judgment was delivered by me on 23 January 2019 at 2:00pm
pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

…………………………………
Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Richard C Mark, Kerikeri, for the Plaintiff Heaney & Partners, Auckland, for the Defendant Copy for:
Nathan Gedye QC, Auckland, for the Plaintiff

RINTOUL GROUP LIMITED v ROBSON [2019] NZHC 21 [23 January 2019]

[1] Ms Robson, the defendant, applies for summary judgment and to strike out the plaintiff’s claim for misfeasance in public office.

[2] The Rintoul Group Ltd is an earthworks and construction contractor operating in the Far North. It says that it has an established history of contracting successfully to the Far North District Council. From July 2014 to September 2017 Ms Robson, a civil engineer, was the general manager of infrastructure and asset management at the council. Between 2015 and 2017, The Rintoul Group Ltd tendered for 17 contracts with the council,1 but was unsuccessful in all of them. It says that Ms Robson was responsible for it not being awarded any contracts. It claims that she acted with targeted malice against it to ensure that it would not be awarded any contracts. Alternatively, it says that her role as manager of infrastructure and asset management required her to act in good faith in evaluating tenders and awarding engineering contracts, to make decisions on merit, and not for an improper purpose. She knowingly failed to do so and was aware that her actions would cause loss to The Rintoul Group Ltd. It claims compensatory damages for the contracts not awarded to it and exemplary damages.

[3]There are three main questions:

(a)Does Rintoul’s statement of claim meet the procedural requirements for a pleading of misfeasance in public office?

(b)Can Rintoul make a claim against Ms Robson for four cycleway contracts when it has already successfully sued the council for being excluded from the tender process for those contracts? and

(c)Has Ms Robson shown that Rintoul’s misfeasance claim cannot succeed on the merits?

1 The contracts were variously to build parts of the Twin Coast Cycle Trail, to repair roads and to carry out upgrades.

[4] As to the requirements for a claim of misfeasance in public office, in Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Chesterfields Pre-School Ltd the Court of Appeal said:2
[40] As the tort currently stands, there are two forms of liability; targeted malice and non-targeted malice. And in both forms, the act complained of must be done by a public officer and in the exercise of that officer’s public functions. Further, a fundamental element of the tort, in both forms, is that there must be actual…

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 Rintoul Group Ltd v Robson

Details

AGLC: Rintoul Group Ltd v Robson [2019] NZHC 21
Case: [2019] NZHC 21
Decision Date: 23 January 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rintoul Group Ltd sought to recover losses it suffered as a result of not being awarded contracts by the Far North District Council. It brought a claim against the council, which it was successful in, but it also brought a claim against the former manager of infrastructure and asset management at the council, Ms Robson. Ms Robson applied for the claim to be struck out and for summary judgment. The plaintiff’s claim for misfeasance in public office against Ms Robson was dismissed in part, but not in full. The court held that the plaintiff’s pleadings were sufficient, but that the plaintiff could not claim for four contracts for which it had already sued the council and was successful. As for the remaining contracts, the court held that the plaintiff had presented enough evidence to make out a case against Ms Robson and that the application for summary judgment should be dismissed. The court ordered that the part of the plaintiff’s claim relating to the four cycleway contracts be struck out, that the applications for strike-out and summary judgment be struck out, and that Ms Robson pay costs to the plaintiff.

Orders