| Stieller v Porirua City Council | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Court of Appeal of New Zealand |
| Full case name | Brian Joseph Stieller & Kay Marian Stieller v The Porirua City Council |
| Decided | 19 June 1986 |
| Citation(s) | [1986] 1 NZLR 84 |
| Transcript(s) | High Court judgment |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | Cooke P, Richardson J, McMullin J |
| Keywords | |
| negligence | |
Stieller v Porirua City Council [1986] 1 NZLR 84 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding council liability in tort for negligent inspection. [1]
The Stiellers purchased a new house. Later, they discovered that they weatherboards were substandard, and that a stormwater drain was not connected.
Both defects had gone unnoticed by the local council building inspector.
The Stieller's sued the council for negligent building inspections.
The Court of Appeal ruled that the council owed the buyers of the house a duty of care, and awarded damages against the council.
Footnote: The Court of Appeal decided Stieller v Porirua City Council on the same day as Brown v Heathcote County Council and Craig v East Coast Bays City Council which also involved negligent council building inspections.
Negligence is a failure to exercise appropriate and/or ethical ruled care expected to be exercised amongst specified circumstances. The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by failing to act as a form of carelessness possibly with extenuating circumstances. The core concept of negligence is that people should exercise reasonable care in their actions, by taking account of the potential harm that they might foreseeably cause to other people or property.
In law and insurance, a proximate cause is an event sufficiently related to an injury that the courts deem the event to be the cause of that injury. There are two types of causation in the law: cause-in-fact, and proximate cause. Cause-in-fact is determined by the "but for" test: But for the action, the result would not have happened. The action is a necessary condition, but may not be a sufficient condition, for the resulting injury. A few circumstances exist where the but-for test is ineffective. Since but-for causation is very easy to show, a second test is used to determine if an action is close enough to a harm in a "chain of events" to be legally valid. This test is called proximate cause. Proximate cause is a key principle of insurance and is concerned with how the loss or damage actually occurred. There are several competing theories of proximate cause. For an act to be deemed to cause a harm, both tests must be met; proximate cause is a legal limitation on cause-in-fact.
The system of Tort law in Australia is broadly similar to that in other common law countries. However, some divergences in approach have occurred as its independent legal system has developed.
Anns v Merton London Borough Council[1977] UKHL 4, [1978] AC 728 was a decision of the House of Lords that established a broad test for determining the existence of a duty of care in the tort of negligence, called the Anns test or sometimes the two-stage test for true third-party negligence. The case was overruled by Murphy v Brentwood DC [1991].
Tortious interference, also known as intentional interference with contractual relations, in the common law of torts, occurs when one person intentionally damages someone else's contractual or business relationships with a third party, causing economic harm. As an example, someone could use blackmail to induce a contractor into breaking a contract; they could threaten a supplier to prevent them from supplying goods or services to another party; or they could obstruct someone's ability to honor a contract with a client by deliberately refusing to deliver necessary goods.
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio is a legal doctrine which states that a plaintiff will be unable to pursue legal relief and damages if it arises in connection with their own tortious act. Particularly relevant in the law of contract, tort and trusts, ex turpi causa is also known as the illegality defence, since a defendant may plead that even though, for instance, he broke a contract, conducted himself negligently or broke an equitable duty, nevertheless a claimant by reason of his own illegality cannot sue. The UK Supreme Court provided a thorough reconsideration of the doctrine in 2016 in Patel v Mirza.
MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050 (1916) is a famous New York Court of Appeals opinion by Judge Benjamin N. Cardozo that removed the requirement of privity of contract for duty in negligence actions.
Kamloops v Nielsen, [1984] 2 SCR 2 ("Kamloops") is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision setting forth the criteria that must be met for a plaintiff to make a claim in tort for pure economic loss. In that regard, the Kamloops case is significant because the Supreme Court adopted the "proximity" test set out in the House of Lords decision, Anns v Merton LBC. Kamloops is also significant as it articulates the "discoverability principle" in which the commencement of a limitation period is delayed until the plaintiff becomes aware of the material facts on which a cause of action are discovered or ought to have been discovered by the plaintiff in the exercise of reasonable diligence. This was later adopted and refined in Central Trust Co v Rafuse. Finally, Kamloops develops the law governing circumstances where a plaintiff can sue the government in tort.
Martin v. Herzog, Ct. of App. of N.Y., 228 N Y. 164, 126 N.E. 814 (1920), was a New York Court of Appeals case.
Economic loss is a term of art which refers to financial loss and damage suffered by a person which is seen only on a balance sheet and not as physical injury to person or property. There is a fundamental distinction between pure economic loss and consequential economic loss, as pure economic loss occurs independent of any physical damage to the person or property of the victim. It has also been suggested that this tort should be called "commercial loss" as injuries to person or property can be regarded as "economic".
Letang v Cooper[1964] EWCA Civ 5 is an English Court of Appeal judgment, by which it was decided that negligently caused personal injury cannot be recovered under the trespass to the person, but the tort of negligence must be tried instead.
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.
Administrative liability in English law is an area of law concerning the tortious liability of public bodies in English law. The existence of private law tort applying to public bodies is a result of Diceyan constitutional theory suggesting that it would be unfair if a separate system of liability existing for government and officials. Therefore, a public body which acts ultra vires is liable in tort is a cause of action can be established just like any individual would be. An ultra vires action will not, per se, give rise to damages Therefore, a claimant will have to fit into one of the recognised private law courses of action. These areas in which a public body can incur private liability in tort were described by Lord Browne Wilkinson in X v Bedfordshire County Council [1995] 3 All ER 353 (HL).
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.
Dutton v Bognor Regis Urban District Council [1972] 1 QB 373 is an English contract law and English tort law case concerning defective premises and the limits of contract damages. It was disapproved by the House of Lords in Murphy v Brentwood DC and is now bad law except in Canada and New Zealand.
Brown v Heathcote County Council [1986] 1 NZLR 76 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding council liability for negligent inspection.
Craig v East Coast Bays City Council [1986] 1 NZLR 99 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding council liability for negligent inspection.
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.
A-G v Rutherford [1976] 1 NZLR 403 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding liability in tort for negligent misstatements
Mount Albert Borough Council v Johnson [1979] 2 NZLR 234 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding the Statute of Limitations defence in tort claims.
 | This article relating to case law in New Zealand is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |