Day v Mead
| Jurisdiction | New Zealand |
| Year | 1987 |
| Date | 1987 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
66 cases
- Kuan Pek Seng @ Alan Kuan v Robert Doran
- Newacres Sdn Bhd v Sri Alam Sdn Bhd
-
Robert Gordon Kidd Against (first) Paull & Williamsons Llp And (second) Burness Paull Llp
...was that the availability of a defence of contributory negligence depended upon the circumstances of a particular case: cf Day v Mead [1987] 2 NZLR 443, Cooke P at 451. Here the pursuer did not assert fraudulent inducement to enter into the Lime Rock contract, and there was no reason why co......
-
Body Corporate 160361 (Fleetwood Apartments) v BC 2004 Ltd and BC 2009 Ltd
...to the designers and project manager. The inherent flexibility of the contribution rules was emphasised by Cooke P in both Day v Mead [1987] 2 NZLR 443 (CA) at 541–542 and Mouat v Clark Boyce [1992] 2 NZLR 559 (CA) 563–564. The lack of prejudice can be tested by considering what would have ......
Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
-
Concurrent Duties
...referring to a fiduciary duty of care).159 n 3 above, at [72]. See also Canson Enterprises Ltd vBrougham & Co n 148 above; Day vMead[1987] 2 NZLR 443 (New Zealand Court of Appeal) and Bank of New Zealand vNew Zealand40 C2019 The Author. The Modern Law Review C2019 The Modern Law Review Lim......
-
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW IN SINGAPORE: A GENERAL OVERVIEW1
...Court of Appeal was not inclined to express any firm view on this issue in the absence of fuller arguments. See, however, Day v. Mead[1987] 2 N.Z.L.R. 443 at p. 450, where Cooke P. in the New Zealand Court of Appeal was of the view that: “In this court it has been accepted that, independent......
-
Equity and Trusts
...& Co(1991) 85 DLR (4th) 129 applied the concept of remoteness to a claim against a solicitor and the New Zealand decision of Day v Mead[1987] 2 NZLR 443 (cf Amaltal Corp Ltd v Maruha Corp[2007] NZSC 40 at [23]; Fiduciary Loyalty at pp 172–176) applied contributory negligence to reduce the l......
-
Whither Remoteness? Wellesley Partners LLP v Withers LLP
...Ch 1 (CA), 17).54 n 51 above at [72].55 CansonEnterprises vBroughton (1991) 85 DLR (4th) 129 (High Court of Australia); Day vMead[1987] 2 NZLR 443 and Bank of New Zealand vNew Zealand Guardian TrustLtd [1999] 1 NZLR664 (New Zealand Court of Appeal). See Burrows, n 38 above, 601-604, which s......
Request a trial to view additional results