Tadd Management Limited v Weine - [2025] NZHC 483

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2019-485-781

[2025] NZHC 483

UNDER sections 24–30 and 35 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017

IN THE MATTER OF

the property at 134 Queens Drive, Lower Hutt

BETWEEN

TADD MANAGEMENT LIMITED

Plaintiff

AND

RUTH RENTON WEINE and MICHAEL

DAVID HOFMANN-BODY as trustees of the Ruth Weine Family Trust
Defendants

AND

NEW ZEALAND CONSULTING ENGINEERS LIMITED

Third Party

On the Papers

Counsel:

F B Collins for the Plaintiff

M R C Wolff for the Defendants

Judgment:

12 March 2025

COSTS JUDGMENT OF GWYN J

Solicitors:
JB Morrison, Wellington
Braun Bond & Lomas Ltd, Hamilton

TADD MANAGEMENT LIMITED v WEINE and HOFMANN-BODY as trustees of the Ruth Weine Family Trust [2025] NZHC 483 [12 March 2025]

Overview

[1] The proceeding related to the purchase by the plaintiff, TADD Management Ltd (TADD), of a commercial building at 134 Queens Drive in Lower Hutt in December 2017 (property). The vendors were the defendants, Ruth Weine and Michael Hofmann-Body as trustees of the Ruth Weine Family Trust.

[2] TADD brought claims against the defendants in contractual misrepresentation and in the alternative, common mistake, saying it relied on the defendants’ representations as to the seismic rating of the property. The defendants claimed against New Zealand Consulting Engineers Ltd (NZCEL) which had provided the Initial Seismic Assessment (ISA) of the property, alleging breach of contract, negligence, and breach of the Fair Trading Act 1986.

Procedural history

[3] On 5 April 2023 this Court gave judgment for TADD on its misrepresentation and common mistake claims.1 The Court dismissed the defendants’ claims against NZCEL. The Court awarded the plaintiff $609,842.40 together with costs on a 2B scale basis and interest.

[4] On 26 July 2023 this Court declined an application for increased or indemnity costs in respect of an interlocutory application for further and better discovery.2 The Court concluded that the plaintiff is entitled to 2B scale costs.

[5] On 14 September 2023 the Court issued a second costs judgment in relation to litigation services disbursements.

[6] On 21 November 2023 the Court declined an application for a stay of enforcement of the judgment and directed that TADD be paid the judgment sum immediately, without condition.3

1      TADD Management Ltd v Weine [2023] NZHC 764.
2      TADD Management Ltd v Weine [2023] NZHC 1968 [July costs decision].
3      TADD Management Ltd v Weine [2023] NZHC 3300.

[7] On 17 July 2024 the Court of Appeal overturned the High Court decision, finding there was no misrepresentation.4 It was unnecessary for the Court to address whether a mistake influenced entry into the contract. The Court directed that costs in the High Court are to be fixed by the High Court in light of the appeal decision.5 This judgment deals with the disputed issues relating to the calculation of these costs.

[8] The defendants seek increased costs (50 per cent uplift on 2B scale), actual disbursements and reimbursement of…

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 Tadd Management Limited v Weine 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 483
Decision Date: 12 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

TADD Management Ltd brought an action against Ruth Weine and Michael Hofmann-Body, as trustees of the Ruth Weine Family Trust, seeking damages for alleged misrepresentations concerning the seismic rating of a commercial property. The defendants counterclaimed against New Zealand Consulting Engineers Ltd, which had conducted an initial seismic assessment of the property. The High Court initially found for TADD, awarding it $609,842.40 in damages, but the Court of Appeal overturned this decision, finding no misrepresentation. This judgment addresses the costs of the litigation.

The defendants seek increased costs (a 50 per cent uplift on 2B scale), actual disbursements, and reimbursement of the third party's costs. TADD opposes these claims, arguing that costs should be limited to the 2B scale, disbursements should be adjusted, and the third party's costs should not be revisited.

The court found that the joinder of New Zealand Consulting Engineers Ltd as a third party was reasonable and necessary, and therefore TADD should reimburse the defendants for the third party's costs. Regarding increased costs, the court concluded that the plaintiff's argument was not without merit, as it was accepted in the High Court. The court found that the plaintiff's rejection of the Calderbank offer, made less than two weeks before the hearing, was reasonable. The court also determined that the plaintiff's experts' fees were reasonable and that the preparation for mediation, which did not eventuate, was recoverable as it was included in the evidence adduced at trial.

The court made orders for the plaintiff to pay the defendants 2B scale costs, excluding certain steps, and to reimburse the defendants for the third party's costs. The court declined the defendants' request for increased costs and the plaintiff's request for reductions to the defendants' experts' fees.

Orders