The 2nd Edition of Civil Remedies in New Zealand is now out.
Once again we are honoured to have the Rt Hon Sir Peter Blanchard provide the Foreward. The full text of which is below:
“How many times is a case won on liability but lost on remedy because a legal adviser has given no or inadequate thought to where a finding of liability may lead? Unfortunately, all too often.”
I said that an object of the work was therefore to encourage earlier and greater concentration on the remedies that might be available if the claimant actually prevails. Whether that hope has yet been realised is for others to judge. Sitting now in the senior court in this country, and concentrating on a relatively small number of cases, I do not see the broad sweep of litigation observable when I was writing from the perspective of the Court of Appeal. I suspect, however, that enthusiasm for a cause of action still leads some practitioners to neglect early consideration of the likely fruits of their work.
What has changed since the release of the 1st edition and this one?
It is 8 years since the first edition. During that time some of the areas covered by the team of authors have not experienced any major change but in others there has been much development. In the latter category I instance exemplary damages, where Bottrill in the Privy Council has been displaced by Couch in the Supreme Court, which itself did not exist in 2003. In contract, the House of Lords has contributed Golden Strait and The Achilleas and the High Court of Australia has in Tabcorp shown that the decision in Ruxley, declining to award the cost of making right an asset incorrectly built, was an exceptional situation. In the law of remedies in tort the Supreme Court in Canada has restricted liability for psychiatric harm in Mustapha, while our Court of Appeal has in Benton discussed damages for inadequate professional advice in a context where it was necessary to assess what might have occurred if proper advice had been given. The New Zealand Supreme Court has considered awards of damages for breach of fiduciary duty in Chirnside and in Premium Real Estate. In Ashley the House of Lords drew on New Zealand Bill of Rights Act cases in its consideration of the aim of an award of compensatory damages for the commission of an intentional tort.
Two new chapters have been added in this edition dealing with Bill of Rights damages and taxation of damages. In the former, the leading case is now Taunoa in the Supreme Court. The section on limitation now addresses both the 1950 and 2010 Limitation Acts, the former of which will continue to govern claims arising before 2011.
I express again my gratitude to the team of authors, now joined by Bevan Marten, Jessica Palmer and David McLay. Andrew Beck and Geoff McLay have taken on a greater load in this edition. And once again I thank the team at Thomson Reuters for their willingness to provide the New Zealand legal community with a work of such practical importance.”
1 July 2011
To find out more about the book please click the link below:
Or click the link to contact your account manager
Or talk to our customer care team: freephone 0800 10 60 60