On 2nd November Fee Langstone staff and guests enjoyed a relaxed evening at Everybody's. Partygoers relived the golden age of air travel, featuring retro hits from band Rocking Roller-Coasters and DJ Sal Valentine. Dance troupe Porkchop entertained us with their unique mix of traditional Samoan and contemporary dance moves. 

Several hundred leaky building owners are claiming that companies in the James Hardie group have breached their duty to warn, inform and/or to take reasonable steps to withdraw defective cladding products. Two holding companies, not involved in the manufacturing process, applied for summary judgment to strike out the claim, but the Court has found the building owners have an arguable case.

A number of our staff made the trip down to Wellington for this year’s NZILA Conference at Te Papa.

What happens when there are two concurrent causes of loss- one falling within the insuring clause and the other expressly outside it? The appeal has confirmed that where two causes of loss are effective and interdependent, the Wayne Tank principle applies, and the entire claim is excluded.

"Fee Langstone has a great culture that recognises and encourages hard work but also is casual and friendly and very collegial with a real focus on people."

In post-earthquake Christchurch, it is not uncommon for a vendor of an earthquake-damaged property to sell the property without carrying out repairs and purport to assign to the purchaser the right to claim under the property’s material damage insurance policy.  A recent High Court decision has provided welcome clarification as to whether such an assignment operates to assign a right to full replacement of the house, or just the indemnity value. 

This month we have moved into our new offices located on level 18 in the same building.  Our new address is:

Level 18 CBL House
51 Shortland Street
PO Box 1801
Auckland 1140

"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