Cygnet Farms Limited v ANZ Bank New Zealand Limited [2016] NZHC 2838
This case illustrates an intriguing gap in the law where despite the plaintiffs having shown the bank breached a duty of care owed to them, resulting in loss, they were denied tortious damages through the application of the Contractual Remedies Act 1979.
Fee Langstone was proud once again to be a sponsor of the Insurers v Brookers Football Tournament on April 5th at the Eastern Suburbs AFC. Despite some rain, an energetic crowd turned up to watch all 6 teams play “the beautiful game.” The insurers were the big winners of the day, winning all three games. Thanks to all who attended.
Read MoreThe trip home from Wellington following the New Zealand vs Fiji football match (thanks Crombie Lockwood for hosting!) turned out to take rather longer than expected...
Read MoreSiemens (New Zealand) Limited v Broadspectrum (New Zealand) Ltd [2017] NZHC 287
An interesting point highlighted by this case is that for larger projects, insurance obligations set out in the policy and contractual documents do not always sit well together. In this case a master supply agreement between the two parties had two different clauses limiting liability to two different amounts.
Read More
Fee Langstone recently held its inaugural alumni evening. This was a night of celebration to show Fee Langstone's appreciation for our former colleagues whose hard work and support has made Fee Langstone what it is today. Alumni from the Fee Langstone, Jones Fee and Heaney Jones days gathered from around the country (and even Australia!) for a night of renewing old friendships and reliving past adventures. A comedy show from Ben Hurley topped off a fantastic night.
Invercargill City Council v Southland Indoor Leisure Centre Charitable Trust [2017] NZCA 68
The Court of Appeal has overturned the High Court and has found that the Invercargill City Council owed no duty of care to the Southland Indoor Leisure Charitable Trust, despite having issued a code of compliance certificate for work done on the roof of a building that later collapsed.
Read More“Working on brokers PI claims in London introduced me to so many different types of insurance risk – reinsurance, bankers blanket bond, D&O, property – it was a great way to get to know the industry and understand how it works.”
Read MoreAndrews Property Services Ltd v Body Corporate 160361 [2016] NZCA 644
This is an interesting case as builders, who were employed to fix the exterior of a leaky apartment complex, were not found to have a duty to warn the owners that a survey of the external damage had not been completed by the architects. However, the CA warned that there could be a duty in other circumstances.
Read MoreRoose v Duthie [2016] NZCA 600
This case provides a distinction between loss in a "flawed transaction" and loss in a "no transaction" in the context of sale and purchase of property.
The Court of Appeal also makes it clear that the subsequent discovery of fraud can be used to justify postponing the start of the limitation period in an existing cause of action.
Cleary v Ewart & Ewart [2017] NZHC 39
In this unusual case, a man entered into a Deed to purchase beachfront property in Fiji. The Deed, it turned out, conferred no rights upon him at all.
Read More"Insurance has such a broad reach across society that you get a really wide variety of legal issues and scenarios to consider, while also having to take into account an overlay of legal principles that are quite specialist and distinct from other areas of law. So for me, insurance law provides the best of both worlds."
Read MoreZurich Australian Insurance Ltd v Mark Donald Withers [2016] NZCA 618
The Court of Appeal has recently reconsidered the interpretation of the dishonesty exclusion in a professional indemnity policy. In finding for Zurich, the Court gave greater clarity to how the test will be applied, particularly to the relationship between breaches of the insured's professional standards and objective dishonesty.
Read MoreThe Supreme Court has today dismissed an appeal by Prattley Enterprises Limited, in a decision that will be well received by insurers who have been following this proceeding, in which an insured sought to re-open the settlement agreement for an earthquake claim for a commercial building held for investment purposes.
Read MoreGreat Lakes Reinsurance (UK) SE v Western Trading Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 1003
The decision considered the enforceability of clauses in an insurance policy that made payment of reinstatement costs conditional on the insured first incurring these costs itself, and commencing work in a reasonable time. Also considered was the position where it is unclear if the insured genuinely intends to reinstate the damaged property.
Read MoreVinnlustodin HF v Sea Tank Shipping AS [2016] EWHC 2514 (Comm) (The Aqasia)
A recent decision of the Commercial Court in the UK has settled a decades-long dispute as to whether the term "unit" in Article IV Rule 5 of the Hague Rules can be read as including units of measurement.
Read MoreSmart v AAI Ltd; JRK Realty Pty Ltd v AAI Ltd [2015] NSWSC 392.
Proceedings were brought against the insurer of a finance broker for recovery of misappropriated funds. The decision of the New South Wales Supreme Court concerned whether this was a claim for compensation, as required by the insurance policy.
Read More"Our job is to take the complex, distil it down and find a solution for our clients, but to do that we have to gain an understanding of so many different fields and areas. That can be challenging at times, but also very rewarding."
Read MoreSimmonds v Gammell [2016] EWHC 2515.
The decision concerned whether the attacks on 9/11 could be considered a "single event" for the purposes of a reinsurance contract, or if the insured's failure to provide respiratory gear for its clear-up workers made this interpretation untenable.
Read MoreA recent decision of a Standards Committee has cast doubt on insurers' ability to require a lawyer insured under a professional indemnity policy to insist on a discharge as a condition to settling a client's claim.
Read More"I started out working at ‘the big firms’ but really enjoyed the shift to the more personal environment of a smaller firm. Now I’ve spent more than half of my career at Fee Langstone..."
Read MoreAt Fee Langstone we’re experts in the field of insurance law. We are a team of skilled litigation lawyers, able to work with you to provide strategies and robust solutions, fast.
Auckland
Level 18, 51 Shortland Street
Auckland 1010
Tel. +64 9 373 0050
reception@feelangstone.co.nz
Christchurch
Level 1, 83 Lichfield Street
Christchurch 8011
Tel: +64 3 371 4622
