Takaro Properties Ltd v Rowling | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Court | Judicial Committee of the Privy Council |
Full case name | Wallace Edward Rowling and The Attorney General v Takaro Properties Limited |
Decided | 30 November 1987 |
Citation | [1987] UKPC 34 |
Transcript | High Court judgment Privy Council ruling |
Court membership | |
Judges sitting | Lord MacKay of Clashfern, Lord Keith, Lord Brandon of Oakbrook, Lord Templeman, Lord Goff of Chieveley |
Keywords | |
negligence |
Takaro Properties Limited v Rowling [1987] UKPC 34 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding negligence by the government [1]
In 1968, Richard Rush, a wealthy businessman from the United States, purchased the 2,591 acre Takaro Station from the Crown, that borders Lake Te Anau with the plan to develop a luxury lodge for wealthy visitors from overseas. The development was financed by a $1 million loan guaranteed by Rush's father in law.
The lodge opened in 1970, but with an occupancy rate of less than 20%, the lodge closed in 1973. In the meantime, in 1971, Mr Rush's father in law died, resulting in the executor paying out the loan and seeking repayment by Takaro.
Due to the financial difficulties, Takaro sought to sell 90% of the shares to the Japanese company Mitsubishi, which planned to develop a golf course and up to 136 holiday homes.
However, at the time, under the Reserve Bank Act [1964] for such a foreign investor to be able to buy shares in a New Zealand company, it required the consent of the Minister of Finance. Bill Rowling, the finance minister at the time, refused to consent to the investment on the basis that he wanted the business to revert to a New Zealand owner.
Rush then requested Rowling to reconsider this decision on the basis that a refusal would cause severe financial hardship, but resulted in the same decision.
As a last result, Rush filed for a judicial review of Rowling's decision, with Wild CJ later ruling that Rowling had no legal right to consider reversion to New Zealand ownership in his decision, directing Rowling to reconsider his decision again.
By now however, as a result of the Yom Kippur War, a worldwide economic recession had begun to occur, causing Mitsubishi to reconsider whether to invest in a luxury lodge, and they ultimately pulled out of the deal.
Soon after, the lodge was placed into receivership and was sold.
Rush later sued Rowling in tort, claiming he was negligent in his decision making process.
In the High Court, his claim was dismissed by the judge, but on appeal to the Court of Appeal, it was overturned, being awarded $300,000 in damages. Rowling appealed to the Privy Council.
The Privy Council overturned the Court of Appeal judgment, ruling the minister had wider powers to make the decision than the Court of Appeal allowed, meaning that Rowling's decision at the time complied with the law.
This case makes it highly unlikely that a government minister could owe someone a duty of care. Whilst this case will often be contrasted with the case Meates v Attorney-General[1983] NZLR 308 where a Minister was held to owe a duty of care, this decision was made at the lower level of the Court of Appeal.
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) is the highest court of appeal for the Crown Dependencies, the British Overseas Territories, some Commonwealth countries and a few institutions in the United Kingdom. Established on 14 August 1833 to hear appeals formerly heard by the King-in-Council, the Privy Council formerly acted as the court of last resort for the entire British Empire, other than for the United Kingdom itself.
An Order in Council is a type of legislation in many countries, especially the Commonwealth realms. In the United Kingdom, this legislation is formally made in the name of the monarch by and with the advice and consent of the Privy Council (King-in-Council), but in other countries the terminology may vary. Orders-in-Council are distinct from Orders of Council, which are made in the name of the Council without sovereign approval.
The Court of Cassation is the supreme court for civil and criminal cases in France. It is one of the country's four superior courts, along with the Council of State, the Constitutional Council and the Jurisdictional Disputes Tribunal.
In law, an en banc session is when all the judges of a court sit to hear a case, not just one judge or a smaller panel of judges. For courts like the United States Courts of Appeals in which each case is heard by a three-judge panel instead of the entire court, en banc review is usually used for only unusually complex or important cases or when the court believes there is an especially significant issue at stake. En banc is a French phrase meaning "in bench".
Landmark court decisions, in present-day common law legal systems, establish precedents that determine a significant new legal principle or concept, or otherwise substantially affect the interpretation of existing law. "Leading case" is commonly used in the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth jurisdictions instead of "landmark case", as used in the United States.
Cooper v Hobart, 2001 SCC 79 is a Supreme Court of Canada case that redefined the "Anns test", which was adopted in Kamloops v Nielsen to establish a duty of care in civil tort cases.
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:
Falemaʻi Lesa is a Samoan citizen resident in New Zealand who famously and successfully stopped her own deportation by arguing she was also a New Zealand citizen to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, then the highest court of appeal in New Zealand.
In most legal jurisdictions, a supreme court, also known as a court of last resort, apex court, and highcourt of appeal, and court of final appeal, is the highest court within the hierarchy of courts. Broadly speaking, the decisions of a supreme court are binding on all other courts in a nation and are not subject to further review by any other court. Supreme courts typically function primarily as appellate courts, hearing appeals from decisions of lower trial courts, or from intermediate-level appellate courts. A supreme court can also, in certain circumstances, act as a court of original jurisdiction.
Susan Yvonne Illston is a senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. She was nominated by President Bill Clinton and confirmed by the Senate in 1995. She assumed senior status in 2013.
Aboriginal title is a common law doctrine that the land rights of indigenous peoples to customary tenure persist after the assumption of sovereignty to that land by another colonising state. The requirements of proof for the recognition of aboriginal title, the content of aboriginal title, the methods of extinguishing aboriginal title, and the availability of compensation in the case of extinguishment vary significantly by jurisdiction. Nearly all jurisdictions are in agreement that aboriginal title is inalienable, and that it may be held either individually or collectively.
Project Hayes was a controversial wind farm proposed for the Lammermoor Range of Otago, New Zealand. The project was developed by Meridian Energy from 2006 to 2012 at a cost of $8.9 million.
The Attorney General for Hong Kong v Reid (UKPC)[1993] UKPC 2 was a New Zealand-originated trust law case heard and decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, where it was held that bribe money accepted by a person in a position of trust, can be traced into any property bought and is held on constructive trust for the beneficiary.
Downsview Nominees Ltd v First City Corp Ltd[1992] UKPC 34, [1993] AC 295 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.
Sinclair Investments (UK) Ltd v Versailles Trade Finance Ltd[2011] EWCA Civ 347 is an English trusts law case, concerning constructive trusts. Sinclair was partially overruled in July 2014 by the UK Supreme Court in FHR European Ventures LLP v Cedar Capital Partners LLC.
Cukurova Finance International Ltd & Anor v Alfa Telecom Turkey Ltd[2009] UKPC 19, P.C., [2012] UKPC 20, [2013] UKPC 2, [2013] UKPC 20, [2013] UKPC 25 and [2014] UKPC 15 were a series of judicial decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, one of which is a leading case on the remedy of appropriation for security interests that was introduced into United Kingdom law under the Financial Collateral Arrangements (No.2) Regulations 2003, which implemented the Financial Collateral Arrangements Directive. Together with its related appeals on preliminary and subsequent issues, it has defined the scope of the remedy, as well as what equitable relief may be available.
FHR European Ventures LLP v Cedar Capital Partners LLC[2014] UKSC 45 is a landmark decision of the United Kingdom Supreme Court which holds that a bribe or secret commission accepted by an agent is held on trust for his principal. In so ruling, the Court partially overruled Sinclair Investments (UK) Ltd v Versailles Trade Finance Ltd in favour of The Attorney General for Hong Kong v Reid (UKPC), a ruling from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on appeal from New Zealand.
Daniels v Thompson CA86/96 [1998] NZCA 3; [1998] 3 NZLR 22 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding exemplary damages in tort, in order to get around the normal restrictions that ACC legislation place on injury claims.
Same-sex marriage is currently not recognised in the Cayman Islands. The island's statutory law limits marriage to different-sex couples. A lawsuit with the Grand Court successfully challenged this ban in March 2019; however, the Court of Appeal overturned the ruling in November 2019. Same-sex civil partnerships are legal following the enactment of the Civil Partnership Law, 2020 on 4 September 2020.
Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, 587 U.S. 230 (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case that determined that unless they consent, states have sovereign immunity from private suits filed against them in the courts of another state. The 5–4 decision overturned precedent set in a 1979 Supreme Court case, Nevada v. Hall. This was the third time that the litigants had presented their case to the Court, as the Court had already ruled on the issue in 2003 and 2016.