Vining Realty Group Ltd v Altimarloch Joint Venture Limited
[2010] NZSC 81
•14 July 2010
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 40/2010
[2010] NZSC 81
BETWEENVINING REALTY GROUP LIMITED
Appellant
ANDALTIMARLOCH JOINT VENTURE LIMITED
First RespondentANDGASCOIGNE WICKS
Second Respondent
ANDD S & J W MOORHOUSE
Third RespondentsANDMARLBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL
Fourth Respondent
SC 41/2010
AND BETWEEN GASCOIGNE WICKS
Appellant
ANDALTIMARLOCH JOINT VENTURE LIMITED
First RespondentANDD S & J W MOORHOUSE
Second Respondents
ANDMARLBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL
Third RespondentANDVINING REALTY GROUP LIMITED
Fourth Respondent
Court:Blanchard, Tipping and McGrath JJ
Counsel:M R Ring QC and A B Darroch for Vining Realty Group Ltd
F B Barton for Gascoigne Wicks
M E Casey QC and R M Dunningham for Altimarloch Joint Venture Ltd
D J Goddard QC for Marlborough District Council
Judgment:14 July 2010
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
A The applications for leave to appeal are granted.
BThe approved ground is whether the award of damages against DS & JW Moorhouse (in respect of which they are entitled to be fully indemnified by Vining Realty and Gascoigne Wicks) was appropriately quantified on an expectation basis.
REASONS
[1] Gascoigne Wicks also sought leave to challenge the conclusion of the Courts below that there was a sufficient causal connection between that firm’s negligent conduct (as agent of the Moorhouses) and the decision of the Altimarloch Joint Venture Ltd to enter into or proceed with the contract of sale and purchase. This proposed ground raises entirely factual issues which give rise to no questions of general or public importance. Nor is it shown that the decision of the Court of Appeal in this respect has given rise to a miscarriage of justice. Leave for this ground to be argued is therefore refused.
Solicitors:
Duncan Cotterill, Nelson for Vining Realty Group
Anderson Lloyd, Dunedin for Gascoigne Wicks
Buddle Findlay, Christchurch for Altimarloch Joint Venture Limited
Heaney & Co, Auckland for Marlborough District Council
1
0
0