Tasman District Council v Buchanan - [2024] 2 NZLR 557

Novel duty of care — Whether loss reasonably foreseeable — Whether relationship sufficiently proximate — Whether fair, just and reasonable — Framework, not straitjacket.

Negligence — Can be found on incorrect statements about compliance in a Code Compliance Certificate — Also on a careless inspection — Careful inspections in 2009 and 2012 would not have altered the construction — Adds nothing to negligent misstatement.

Negligent misstatement — Statement not made for purpose being relied on — Adviser knew it would be communicated — Adviser knew it would be relied on without independent inquiry — Recipient did not act in reliance on the statements — Nothing changed — Purpose of legislation a factor in deciding proximity and policy — Purpose to protect young children — Inspection to identify supervening post construction risk — Not to protect economic interests of owners.

Negligence — 2009 and 2012 inspections no control over construction — Careless inspections did not cause the difficulties — No duty to protect owners from loss of rights of acting against Council and others.

Negligence — If duty — Inspectors made same errors in 2009 and 2012 as 2006 — Breach established — Special and general damages appropriate — Damage suffered in 2016 when claim time barred or 2019 when discovered — 2009 and 2012 inspections not “building work” or conduct relating to building work — Longstop not applicable unless actually related to original building work — Court power to grant declarations and damages — Only for compelling reasons — No such reasons.