Rolls-Royce New Zealand Ltd v Carter Holt Harvey Ltd
Rolls-Royce New Zealand Ltd v Carter Holt Harvey Ltd | |
---|---|
Court | Court of Appeal of New Zealand |
Full case name | ROLLS-ROYCE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Appellant v CARTER HOLT HARVEY LIMITED Respondent And Strike-Out Respondent AND GENESIS POWER LIMITED Strike-Out Applicant |
Decided | 23 June 2004 |
Citation | [2005] 1 NZLR 324 |
Transcript | Court of Appeal judgment |
Court membership | |
Judges sitting | Gault P, Anderson J, Glazebrook J |
Keywords | |
negligence |
Rolls-Royce New Zealand Ltd v Carter Holt Harvey Ltd [2005] 1 NZLR 324 is decision of the Court of Appeal of New Zealand regarding tort claims in situations where a claim can be in both tort and contract.[1]
Background
[edit]Carter Holt entered into a contract with ECNZ (now Genesis Energy) for them to construct a cogeneration plant at their Kinleith paper mill that would be fueled by waste byproduct from the mill, with the contract having a non liability clause.
ECNZ in turn subcontracted the work to Rolls-Royce.
Problems later were experienced with the generators that were installed, and CHH sued ECNZ for breach of contract. As there was no contract between CHH and Rolls-Royce, they were sued for negligence in tort.
Rolls-Royce applied for the tort claim against them to be struck out on the basis that ECNZ could not have a claim in both contract and tort.
Held
[edit]The court ruled where parties are involved in complex commercial relationships, there could only be duties owed in contract, and not in tort. Accordingly, the court granted Rolls-Royces application to strike out part of the claim.
However, the court did leave open to a claim in tort still being arguable for misrepresentation claims in tort, as per in Hedley Byrne.
References
[edit]- ^ McLay, Geoff (2010). Butterworths Student Companion Torts (6th ed.). LexisNexis. ISBN 9781877511400.