High Court Judgments of Public Interest
This page provides access to judgments of the High Court in the last 90 days deemed to be of particular public interest.
More information about finding court judgments is available on the Judgments section of this website.
It is the responsibility of users of the information contained in these decisions to ensure compliance with conditions or other legal obligations governing access, release, storage and re-publication. See also the guide on statutory provisions that prohibit publication of certain information in certain circumstances (PDF, 211 KB). If in doubt you should consult the court that issued the decision(s). Judicial decisions are presented in PDF format to preserve the integrity of the documents.
HC held: appeal allowed in part. Copyright in the paintings is relationship property. Mr Palmer also entitled to receive half the paintings by value created during the relationship. Occupational rent a reasonable amount in circumstances. Copyright issue remitted to FC.
CLSA admitted the breaches which relate to transactions undertaken by 10 different customers between 2015 and 2018 with a total value of NZD$49.5 m (NZD$40.8 m of which relates to two customers). This was a small proportion of the number and value of transactions undertaken by CLSA at the time. The penalty reflects the seriousness of the breaches and incorporates a discount for admissions and cooperation.
Whether Judge erred in awarding reparation for emotional harm on an individual basis rather than per family basis.
Whether reparation should have been less because the workplace offence of the employer was not the sole cause of the deaths and/or because the culpability of the offending was less than other cases.
Whether there was an error because the reparation ordered was outside the range of awards in other cases.
Whether an individual had to provide a victim impact report before an employer would have to pay emotional harm reparation for that individual.
James Hardie did not breach the duty of care owed by it to the owners of Harditex-clad homes. Harditex was not an inherently flawed product or system, nor too difficult for builders to install. It was fit for purpose, namely, to provide a waterproof cladding for New Zealand residential homes constructed in accordance with applicable standards and sound building practice.
James Hardie also discharged the obligation of a reasonable cladding manufacturer to provide adequate technical information to assist with the installation of its product. It was reasonable for James Hardie to assume the target audience of this information would be competent builders with requisite experience in installing fibre-cement sheet cladding generally, from which Harditex was not materially different. The evolution of the technical information reflected an awareness of decreasing building standards and the need for more comprehensive guidance.
There was no duty on James Hardie to warn consumers to weathertightness deficits. The judgment concludes that Harditex is not fundamentally flawed, and thus there is no obligation on James Hardie to warn of deficits that did not exist. The evidence does not indicate a belief, or that there should have been a belief that aspects of Harditex were failing or represented a risk which required special action. James Hardie had no duty to warn consumers of the risks associated with untreated timber framing, a material which the regulatory scheme had specifically been amended to allow and which had no bearing on the performance of Harditex. Further, the creation of Monotek, a newer and better cladding product by James Hardie cannot of itself require a manufacture to give warnings about deficits in its lesser product.
The homeowners’ Fair Trading Act claim significantly overlaps the negligence claims and fails in its entirety. James Hardie did not engage in conduct that was misleading or deceptive, or likely to be so.