Trevor Ivory Ltd v Anderson

Last updated

Trevor Ivory Ltd v Anderson
Coat of arms of New Zealand.svg
Court Court of Appeal
Full case nameTrevor Ivory Limited & Anor v Anderson & Ors
Decided20 December 1991
Citation(s)[1992] 2 NZLR 517
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Cooke P, Hardie Boys and McGechan JJ
Keywords
Negligent misstatement, Piercing the corporate veil, Director's liabilities, Corporate personality, Corporate law, assumption of responsibility

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". [1]

Contents

Background

Trevor Ivory Ltd was a one-man company run by Trevor Ivory in the Nelson province and described as "agricultural and horticultural supplies and advisory service". In 1983, Trevor Ivory Limited entered into an oral contract with raspberry orchardists for the provision of consultancy services and the supply of sprays and fertilisers. The orchardists sought advice under the agreement about the spread of couch grass which was threatening their raspberry plantation and in March 1985 Mr Ivory recommended a trial spray of Roundup.

The trial spray had no immediate ill-effects and so Mr Ivory advised spraying all of the couch grass with Roundup. President Cooke described what happened thus,

Roundup is a powerful herbicide, well suited to killing couch grass but having the same effect on raspberry plants. Its use in the near vicinity of the plants was highly dangerous to them, especially when (as again the Judge found) no instructions were given by Mr Ivory to mow near and under the plants or otherwise remove any foliage from the plants near the ground. In the spring it was discovered that the crop had been seriously affected. Ultimately the raspberries had to be dug out. They were replaced by boysenberries.

— Cooke P, Trevor Ivory Ltd v Anderson [2]

The raspberry orchardists sued Trevor Ivory in negligence and Heron J in the Nelson High Court found in their favour and awarded damages of $145,332 plus interest. The award of damages was made on the basis that the company was liable for breach of contract and negligent misstatement and that Mr Ivory was also personally liable for negligent misstatement. [3]

Mr Ivory and Trevor Ivory Ltd appealed the decision that he was personally liable for negligent misstatement; the judges alleged failure to consider contributory negligence; and the quantum of damages. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal except on the question of personal liability. [4]

Judgments

The main point that the Court considered was whether Mr Ivory was personally liable for negligent advice given in the course of his company's operations. The unanimous decision of the Court was that Mr Ivory was not personally liable

An orchard of raspberries had been killed by the negligent application of Roundup to a couch grass infestation. Raspberries (Rubus Idaeus).jpg
An orchard of raspberries had been killed by the negligent application of Roundup to a couch grass infestation.

Cooke P

In his judgement Cooke P restated the "elementary" law that "an incorporated company and any shareholder are separate legal entities, no matter that the shareholder may have absolute control." [5]

Cooke P then surveyed Commonwealth case law that showed that a company officer or agent may, in certain circumstances, "come under a personal duty to a third party, breach of which ay entail personal liability". [6]

In this field I agree with Nourse J (as he then was) in the White Horse case that it behoves the Courts to avoid imposing on the owner of a one-man company a personal duty of care which would erode the limited liability and separate identity principles associated with the names of Salomon and Lee. Viewing the issue as one of the assumption of a duty of care, which is the way in which Mr Fogarty for the respondents rightly asked us to view it, I cannot think it reasonable to say that Mr Ivory assumed a duty of care to the plaintiffs as if he were carrying on business on his own account and not through a company.

— Cooke P, Trevor Ivory Ltd V Anderson [7]

Expanding on this point Cooke P noted,

Without venturing further into what some would see as unduly theoretical, it not heterodox, I commit myself to the opinion that, when he formed his company, Mr Ivory made it plain to all the world that limited liability was intended. Possibly the plaintiffs gave little thought to that in entering into the consultancy contract; but such a limitation is a common fact of business and, in relation to economic loss and duties of care, the consequences should in my view be accepted in the absence of special circumstances. It is not to be doubted that, in relation to an obligation to give careful and skilful advice, the owner of a one-man company may assume personal responsibility. Fairline is an analogy. But it seems to me that something special is required to justify putting a case in that class. To attempt to define in advance what might be sufficiently special would be a contradiction in terms. What can be said is that there is nothing out of the ordinary here.

— Cooke P, Trevor Ivory Ltd V Anderson [8]

Hardie Boys J

In his own judgement Justice Hardie Boys discussed the central importance of a director assuming responsibility, either expressly or by imputation and, noted the current case was "approaching the borderline" [9] and that, "It may be that in the present case there would have been a sufficient assumption of responsibility had Mr Ivory undertaken to do the spraying himself, but it is not necessary to consider that possibility." [10]

Hardie Boys J stated that one of the key hurdles in this area of law was establishing that a director owed a personal duty of care because his acts were his acts as the agent of the company and not of the company itself. [11]

“What does run counter to the purposes and effect of incorporation is a failure to recognise the two capacities in which directors may act; that in appropriate circumstances they are to be identified with the company itself, so that their acts are in truth the company’s acts. Indeed I consider that the nature of corporate personality requires that this identification normally be the basic premise and that clear evidence be needed to displace it with a finding that a director is not acting as the company but as the company’s agent or servant in a way that renders him personally liable.”

— Hardie Boys J, Trevor Ivory Ltd V Anderson [12]

This could happen in certain situations, Hardie Boys J believed, "Assumption of responsibility may well arise or be imputed where the director or employee exercises particular control or control over a particular operation or activity". [13]

McGechan J

Justice McGechan concurred with the rest of the Court, expressly noting of the argument given by counsel for the raspberry orchardists, "It may indeed be drawing the long bow to apply a Hedley Byrne approach so as to impose personal liability upon the managing director of a one-man company, in rural New Zealand". [14]

When it comes to assumption of responsibility, I do not accept a company director of a one-man company is to be regarded as automatically accepting tort responsibility for advice given on behalf of the company by himself. There may be situations where such liability tends to arise, particularly perhaps where the director as a person is highly prominent and his company is barely visible, resulting in a focus predominantly on the man himself. All will depend upon the facts of individual cases, and the degree of implicit assumption of personal responsibility, with no doubt some policy elements also applying. I do not think this is such a case, although it approaches the line.

— McGechan J, Trevor Ivory Ltd V Anderson [15]

Significance

The case remains the benchmark in New Zealand law for establishing whether a director's action are those of the company or those of herself as an individual. However this area of law, which has received frequent attention due to the leaky homes crisis, remains unstable. The importance of the case has been eroded by the decision of the Court of Appeal in Body Corporate 202254 v Taylor [2009] 2 NZLR 17. As two commercial law academics reported, "New Zealand cases subsequent to Trevor Ivory have done little but create uncertainty for litigants. The courts’ approaches have varied widely with some judges applying Trevor Ivory and others making every effort to distinguish it." [16]

Related Research Articles

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 common law jurisdictions, a misrepresentation is an untrue or misleading statement of fact made during negotiations by one party to another, the statement then inducing that other party to enter into a contract. The misled party may normally rescind the contract, and sometimes may be awarded damages as well.

<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 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.

The tort of deceit is a type of legal injury that occurs when a person intentionally and knowingly deceives another person into an action that damages them. Specifically, deceit requires that the tortfeasor

<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>Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd</i>

Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd [1994] UKHL 5 was a landmark House of Lords case. It established the possibility of concurrent liability in both tort and contract.

<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.

<i>Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon</i>

Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon [1976] EWCA Civ 4 is an English contract law case, concerning misrepresentation. It holds that the divide between a statement of opinion and fact becomes more factual if one holds himself out as having expert knowledge.

<i>Dutton v Bognor Regis UDC</i> Law case

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.

<i>Livingstone v Roskilly</i>

Livingstone v Roskilly [1992] 3 NZLR 230 was a 1992 New Zealand appeal case questioning whether an "all care, no responsibility" clause excluded liability for negligent damage to a bailor's goods.

<i>Viasystems (Tyneside) Ltd v Thermal Transfer (Northern) Ltd</i>

Viasystems (Tyneside) Ltd v Thermal Transfer (Northern) Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 1151 is an English tort law and UK labour law case, which held that a worker can have more than one employer at the same time, who will be vicariously liable for the worker.

<i>Attorney-General v Geothermal Produce New Zealand Ltd</i>

Attorney-General v Geothermal Produce New Zealand Ltd [1987] 2 NZLR 348 Is an important case in New Zealand regarding cases involving negligence, more specifically regarding foreseeability of loss and the duty to mitigate loss.

<i>R A & T J Carll Ltd v Berry</i>

R A & T J Carll Ltd v Berry [1981] 2 NZLR 76 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding liability in tort for negligent misstatements.

<i>Stringer v Peat Marwick Mitchell & Co</i>

Stringer v Peat Marwick Mitchell & Co [2000] 1 NZLR 450 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding liability for negligent misstatements

<i>Morton v Douglas Homes Ltd</i> New Zealand High Court case

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. 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."

<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.

Floodgates principle

The floodgates principle, or the floodgates argument, is a legal principle which is sometimes applied by judges to restrict or limit the right to make claims for damages because of a concern that permitting a claimant to recover in such situations might open the metaphorical "floodgates" to large numbers of claims and lawsuits. The principle is most frequently cited in common law jurisdictions, and in English tort law in particular.

<i>Walsh v Jones Lang Lasalle Ltd</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Walsh v Jones Lang Lasalle Ltd [2017] IESC 38, is a decision of the Irish Supreme Court in which the court held that a purchaser bears the risk of reliance on erroneous information unless the vendor has clearly assumed responsibility for its accuracy. In reaching this decision, the court clarified the law in Ireland "in relation to the effect of statements disclaiming liability in actions claiming negligent misstatement."

References

  1. ↑ Watson, Susan`; Farrar, John (2013). Company & Securities Law in New Zealand. Brooker. pp. Chapter 10.
  2. ↑ Trevor Ivory Ltd v Anderson [1992] 2 NZLR 517 at 519.
  3. ↑ Trevor Ivory Ltd v Anderson [1992] 2 NZLR 517 at 519.
  4. ↑ Trevor Ivory Ltd v Anderson [1992] 2 NZLR 517 at 517.
  5. ↑ Trevor Ivory Ltd v Anderson [1992] 2 NZLR 517 at 520.
  6. ↑ Trevor Ivory Ltd v Anderson [1992] 2 NZLR 517 at 520.
  7. ↑ Trevor Ivory Ltd v Anderson [1992] 2 NZLR 517 at 523.
  8. ↑ Trevor Ivory Ltd v Anderson [1992] 2 NZLR 517 at 524.
  9. ↑ Trevor Ivory Ltd v Anderson [1992] 2 NZLR 517 at 528.
  10. ↑ Trevor Ivory Ltd v Anderson [1992] 2 NZLR 517 at 527.
  11. ↑ Trevor Ivory Ltd v Anderson [1992] 2 NZLR 517 at 527.
  12. ↑ Trevor Ivory Ltd v Anderson [1992] 2 NZLR 517 at 527.
  13. ↑ Trevor Ivory Ltd v Anderson [1992] 2 NZLR 517 at 527.
  14. ↑ Trevor Ivory Ltd v Anderson [1992] 2 NZLR 517 at 530.
  15. ↑ Trevor Ivory Ltd v Anderson [1992] 2 NZLR 517 at 532.
  16. ↑ Watson, Susan; Noonan, Chris (Autumn 2005). "The corporate shield: What happens to directors when companies fail?" (PDF). University of Auckland Business Review. Retrieved 15 April 2015.
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.