"Fee Langstone has the benefit of being one of the larger litigation practices in the country while remaining a boutique and specialist law firm."

This case is the first successful prosecution under the new Health and Safety at Work Act 2016.  The decision had been eagerly awaited by many to see how the courts were going to approach prosecutions under the new Act.  However the decision is disappointing as the judge declined to make any sentencing guidelines.  What this case did make clear is that fines under the new Act have increased hugely, although the ability of small businesses to pay these large fines is another matter altogether.

The Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 comes into force on 1 September 2017, and with its arrival the Carriage of Goods Act 1979 will pass into history.  Its provisions, fairly substantially re-written, will now be found in Part 5 of the new Act.

Director of Public Prosecutions v Kilsaran Concrete Limited [2017] IECA 112

A company which put the safety of its employees in jeopardy in the pursuit of increased efficiency and maximised profit has had an initial fine of €125,000 increased to €1,000,000 in the Irish Court of Appeal.  This case demonstrates the increasing seriousness placed on health and safety offences in the workplace and a renewed focus on deterrence, both of which are reflective of New Zealand’s new health and safety legislation.

Fee Langstone’s quiz team ‘Beyoncé Knowledge’ enjoyed another quiz night this month supporting the Auckland chapter of Dress for Success – an organisation that aims to provide women with the support and tools they need to gain employment and financial independence.  The teams faced six rounds including famous women, food and drink and a dress-up round.  Thank you to Auckland Women Lawyers’ Association and Chapman Tripp for putting on a great event.

Sadat v Tower Insurance & EQC [2017] NZHC 1150

This case is an unsuccessful claim by a family against Tower Insurance and the EQC for the rebuild of their family home following the September 2010 earthquake.  Expert evidence proved the house had been structurally unsound before the earthquake and, as the family was unable to prove the earthquake caused any material damage to their house, their claim for a rebuild and EQC costs failed.

"Insurance offers so many opportunities in just the one industry and creates a unique amalgamation of so many different areas from legal, to broking, to technology innovation, to communications, to actuaries."

Double J Smallwoods Ltd v Gisborne District Council [2017] NZHC 1284

This case considers the law of strict liability, nuisance and negligence in the context of an unknown third party starting a fire in uncut vegetation on Council land, which spread and caused extensive damage to a timber yard.   It also shows the significant impact a finding of contributory negligence can have on the amount of damages awarded

Matt Atkinson and Russell Stewart had a great night a the first game between the All Black and the British and Irish Lions for the 2017 tour.  Geoff Palmer and Richard Agnew from PwC joined them for a fantastic night of rugby, food and team spirit as they cheered on the All Blacks.  Good luck for July 1st All Blacks!

Impact Funding Solutions Ltd v AIG Europe Insurance Ltd [2016] UKSC 57

This case considers the interpretation of the trading debt exclusion in a solicitor’s professional indemnity policy.  The UKSC made two useful findings.  First, the majority held that the Trading Debt exclusion defined the cover provided by the policy and therefore should not be construed narrowly.  Secondly, the majority held that the Trading Debt exclusion would apply to a claim arising out of a breach of contract to provide services to the solicitors, even if the claim arose from a breach of the solicitor’s duty to their clients.

“An insurance claim only happens when something goes wrong, and there is often an interesting story about what went wrong. It is satisfying to investigate those stories and help solve any problems.”

Lam v Mo [2017] NZHC 997

This case considers the evidence required to prove either an express or implied retainer in the context of a lawyer-client relationship.  In this instance the evidence did not establish the existence of a retainer, so a defendant lawyer had no obligations to the party alleging breach

Fee Langstone's quiz team "Beyoncé Knowledge" had a fantastic evening at the Not The Boy's Club Quiz Night Extravaganza this month.  The teams were lead through 5 rounds - identifying logos, science and nature, history, insurance and general knowledge.  Thanks to the sponsors and to the Not the Boys Club for putting on a great event (and especially for the 16 metres of pizza!).

Investigation into the Performance of Statistics House in the 14 November 2016 Kaikoura Earthquake - Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment

Design standards and building laws will now be reviewed after an independent panel’s investigation into the unacceptable performance of Statistic House in Wellington in the Kaikoura earthquake. 

Congratulations to our law graduate Harriet Birch who was amongst the University of Auckland graduates receiving their degrees this month.   Harriet graduated with a BA(Psychology)/LLB and also received a 2016 Deans Academic Excellence Award for finishing in the top 10% of this year’s graduates.  Harriet is currently doing her professionals course while working and will be admitted to the bar in November. 

"Fee Langstone is effectively bigger than most litigation departments in the large full service firms – so that makes us unique and able to provide quality advice with commercial clarity on a wide range of issues"

BPE Solicitors and Another v Hughes-Holland (in substitution for Gabriel) [2017] UKSC 21

What is the scope of a professional person’s duty?  Is it a duty to provide information to help a client make a decision or is it a duty to advise on the merits of the transaction itself?  What difference does this that make to extent of the professional’s liability?  In this unanimous decision, the UK Supreme Court reaffirmed that an information provider is only responsible for the consequences of the information being wrong.  Whereas an ‘adviser’ is responsible for the entire consequences of the client’s decision to enter into the transaction, even if the adviser’s mistake had nothing to do with the loss.
 

Fee Langstone has appointed three associates - Fran Darlow, Andrew Durrant and James Dymock

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.