Morton v Douglas Homes Ltd

Last updated

Morton v Douglas Homes Ltd
Coat of arms of New Zealand.svg
Court Christchurch High Court
Decided24 May 1983
Citation(s)[1984] 2 NZLR 548
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Hardie Boys J
Keywords
Negligence, Piercing the corporate veil, Directors' liabilities, Corporate personality, Corporate law,

Morton v Douglas Homes Ltd has become an important case in New Zealand as a result of the leaky homes crisis. The salience of the case comes from the fact that Justice Hardie Boys held the directors of a building company personally liable for damage caused by defective foundations. [1] The case has been described in the Court of Appeal as one that, "certainly provides some authority for the view that the directors of a building company with actual control of particular building operations owe a duty of care, associated with that control." [2]

Contents

Background

Between 1976 and 1977 Douglas Homes Ltd built four flats in a residential subdivision in Waimairi County, Canterbury over the top of an old shingle pit. [3] Before construction, "the directors had been advised by an engineer on the work necessary for the laying of foundations for two flats. One of the directors did not ensure that the engineer’s advice was adhered to in the construction of the foundations of one flat. The other director specifically took charge of the works on the other, and failed to ensure the engineer’s advice was followed." [4]

Judgment

Hardie Boys J reasoned that the directors of Douglas Homes Ltd could be held liable for their negligence as, "The principle of limited liability protects shareholders and not directors, and a director is as responsible for his own torts as any other servant or agent." [5]

Hardie Boys J held that in establishing whether a director owed a duty of care the test was to be that established in Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978] AC 728 and that a duty of care was founded upon the control a director exercised over the operations of a company.

The relevance of the degree of control which a director has over the operations of the company is that it provides a test of whether or not his personal carelessness may be likely to cause damage to a third party, so that he becomes subject to a duty of care. It is not the fact that he is a director that creates the control, but rather that the fact of control, however derived, may create the duty. There is therefore no essential difference in this respect between a director and a general manager or indeed a more humble employee of the company. Each is under a duty of care, both to those with whom he deals on the company's behalf and to those with whom the company deals in so far as that dealing is subject to his control.

— Hardie Boys J, Morton v Douglas Homes Ltd' [6]

Significance

The ratio has not yet been overturned and as such remains a precedent for holding directors liable for defects in construction that was under their control. In 2006 in Dicks v Hobson Swan Construction Limited (in liquidation), Justice Baragwanath applied the ratio of the case to hold a director personally liable for a leaky building constructed by his company. [7] In a 2010 appeal from the Weathertight Homes Tribunal Justice Wylie noted the correct approach to searching for directorial liability lay through the test articulated in Morton v Douglas Homes Ltd;

...it should have asked itself whether the elements of the tort of negligence were made out against each of [the directors]. In doing so, it should have borne in mind the presumption against the imposition of personal responsibility where the director was simply acting on behalf of the company. It should have asked itself whether the director assumed personal liability for the relevant conduct. The degree of control test articulated by Hardie Boys J in Morton is likely to be of considerable help in answering that question.

— Wylie J, Chee v Stareast Investment Limited' [8]

Related Research Articles

In law, liable means "responsible or answerable in law; legally obligated". Legal liability concerns both civil law and criminal law and can arise from various areas of law, such as contracts, torts, taxes, or fines given by government agencies. The claimant is the one who seeks to establish, or prove, liability.

Vicarious liability is a form of a strict, secondary liability that arises under the common law doctrine of agency, respondeat superior, the responsibility of the superior for the acts of their subordinate or, in a broader sense, the responsibility of any third party that had the "right, ability or duty to control" the activities of a violator. It can be distinguished from contributory liability, another form of secondary liability, which is rooted in the tort theory of enterprise liability because, unlike contributory infringement, knowledge is not an element of vicarious liability. The law has developed the view that some relationships by their nature require the person who engages others to accept responsibility for the wrongdoing of those others. The most important such relationship for practical purposes is that of employer and employee.

<i>Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd</i>

Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465 is an English tort law case on economic loss in English tort law resulting from a negligent misstatement. Prior to the decision, the notion that a party may owe another a duty of care for statements made in reliance had been rejected, with the only remedy for such losses being in contract law. The House of Lords overruled the previous position, in recognising liability for pure economic loss not arising from a contractual relationship, applying to commercial negligence the principle of "assumption of responsibility".

In tort law, a duty of care is a legal obligation which is imposed on an individual requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others. It is the first element that must be established to proceed with an action in negligence. The claimant must be able to show a duty of care imposed by law which the defendant has breached. In turn, breaching a duty may subject an individual to liability. The duty of care may be imposed by operation of law between individuals who have no current direct relationship but eventually become related in some manner, as defined by common law.

English tort law

English tort law concerns the compensation for harm to people's rights to health and safety, a clean environment, property, their economic interests, or their reputations. A "tort" is a wrong in civil, rather than criminal law, that usually requires a payment of money to make up for damage that is caused. Alongside contracts and unjust enrichment, tort law is usually seen as forming one of the three main pillars of the law of obligations.

<i>Dorset Yacht Co Ltd v Home Office</i>

Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd[1970] UKHL 2, [1970] AC 1004 is a leading case in English tort law. It is a House of Lords decision on negligence and marked the start of a rapid expansion in the scope of negligence in the United Kingdom by widening the circumstances in which a court was likely to find a duty of care. The case also addressed the liability of government bodies, a person's liability for the acts of third parties that he has facilitated, and liability for omissions.

<i>Caparo Industries plc v Dickman</i>

Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman[1990] UKHL 2 is a leading English tort law case on the test for a duty of care. The House of Lords, following the Court of Appeal, set out a "three-fold test". In order for a duty of care to arise in negligence:

In law, the principle of imputation or attribution underpins the concept that ignorantia juris non excusat—ignorance of the law does not excuse. All laws are published and available for study in all developed states. The content of the law is imputed to all persons who are within the jurisdiction, no matter how transiently.

In English tort law, an individual may owe a duty of care to another, to ensure that they do not suffer any unreasonable harm or loss. If such a duty is found to be breached, a legal liability is imposed upon the tortfeasor to compensate the victim for any losses they incur. The idea of individuals owing strangers a duty of care – where beforehand such duties were only found from contractual arrangements – developed at common law, throughout the 20th century. The doctrine was significantly developed in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson, where a woman succeeded in establishing a manufacturer of ginger beer owed her a duty of care, where it had been negligently produced. Following this, the duty concept has expanded into a coherent judicial test, which must be satisfied in order to claim in negligence.

Causation in English law concerns the legal tests of remoteness, causation and foreseeability in the tort of negligence. It is also relevant for English criminal law and English contract law.

<i>Adams v Cape Industries plc</i>

Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch 433 is a UK company law case on separate legal personality and limited liability of shareholders. The case also addressed long-standing issues under the English conflict of laws as to when a company would be resident in a foreign jurisdiction such that the English courts would recognise the foreign court's jurisdiction over the company. It has in effect been superseded by Lungowe v Vedanta Resources plc, which held that a parent company could be liable for the actions of a subsidiary on ordinary principles of tort law.

<i>London Drugs Ltd v Kuehne & Nagel International Ltd</i>

London Drugs Ltd v Kuehne & Nagel International Ltd, [1992] 3 SCR 299 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on privity of contract.

<i>Smith v Eric S Bush</i>

Smith v Eric S Bush [1990] UKHL 1 is an English tort law and contract law case, heard by the House of Lords. First, it concerned the existence of a duty of care in tort for negligent misstatements, not made directly to someone relying on the statement. Second, it concerned the reasonableness of a term excluding liability under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, s 2(2) and s 11.

<i>Williams v Natural Life Health Foods Ltd</i>

Williams v Natural Life Health Foods Ltd[1998] UKHL 17 is an important English tort law, company law and contract law case. It held that for there to be an effective assumption of responsibility, there must be some direct or indirect conveyance that a director had done so, and that a claimant had relied on the information. Otherwise only a company itself, as a separate legal person, would be liable for negligent information.

Vicarious liability in English law is a doctrine of English tort law that imposes strict liability on employers for the wrongdoings of their employees. Generally, an employer will be held liable for any tort committed while an employee is conducting their duties. This liability has expanded in recent years following the decision in Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd to better cover intentional torts, such as sexual assault and deceit. Historically, it was held that most intentional wrongdoings were not in the course of ordinary employment, but recent case law suggests that where an action is closely connected with an employee's duties, an employer can be found vicariously liable. The leading case is now the Supreme Court decision in Catholic Child Welfare Society v Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools, which emphasised the concept of "enterprise risk".

<i>Downsview Nominees Ltd v First City Corp Ltd</i>

Downsview Nominees Ltd v First City Corp Ltd [1992] UKPC 34 is a New Zealand insolvency law case decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council concerning the nature and extent of the liability of a mortgagee, or a receiver and manager, to a mortgagor or a subsequent debenture holder for his actions.

<i>Invercargill City Council v Hamlin</i>

Invercargill City Council v Hamlin [1994] 3 NZLR 513, [1996] 1 NZLR 513 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding council liability for negligent inspection, as well the issue in tort when the start period for the statute of limitations for a latent defect begins.

<i>Trevor Ivory Ltd v Anderson</i>

Trevor Ivory Ltd v Anderson is one of the leading New Zealand cases regarding the personal liability of company directors. The case concerns the personal liability of a director of a one-man company for negligent misstatement and applied the principle of Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass that where a director is the "directing mind" of a company, his actions are legally those of the company. The application of the case by New Zealand courts during the leaky homes crisis has been described as a "barrier to litigants recovering from directors of these companies".

<i>Spring v Guardian Assurance plc</i> United Kingdom labour law court case

Spring v Guardian Assurance plc[1994] UKHL 7, [1995] 2 AC 296 is a UK labour law and English tort law case, concerning the duty to provide accurate information when writing an employee reference.

Lamb v Camden LBC[1981] EWCA Civ 7, [1981] QB 625 is a leading case in English tort law. It is a Court of Appeal decision on negligence and the test of reasonable foreseeability of damage, especially where the damage has been caused by third parties not the defendant him or herself.

References

  1. ↑ Morton v Douglas Homes Ltd [1984] 2 NZLR 548 at 548.
  2. ↑ Body Corporate 202254 v Taylor [2009] 2 NZLR 17 at 32.
  3. ↑ Morton v Douglas Homes Ltd [1984] 2 NZLR 548 at 554.
  4. ↑ Thornton, Michael (13 April 2007). "In pursuit of the directors" (PDF). NZLawyer. Archived from the original (PDF) on 13 January 2015. Retrieved 20 April 2015.
  5. ↑ Trevor Ivory Ltd v Anderson [1992] 2 NZLR 517 at 547.
  6. ↑ Trevor Ivory Ltd v Anderson [1992] 2 NZLR 517 at 548.
  7. ↑ Dicks v Hobson Swan Construction Limited (in liquidation) HC Auckland CIV 2004-404-1065, 20 October 2006
  8. ↑ Chee v Stareast Investment Limited HC Auckland CIV 2009-404-005255, 1 April 2010 at [113].
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.