InvercargillCity Council v Hamlin [1996] AC 624
Judgement for the case InvercargillCity Council v Hamlin
Table Of Contents
Plaintiff employed X to build a house and the local council’s inspector, Defendant, failed to point out defective foundations.
These were discovered when Plaintiff called in an expert and Plaintiff sued Defendant for the cost of repairs.
Privy Council conceded that the NZ law, unlike English courts, does impose a duty of care on inspectors and upheld the verdict that Plaintiff could not have discovered the defects reasonably before calling in the expert and therefore his cause of action accrued from this moment.
There were no special limitations in NZ law on economic loss.
For Further Study on InvercargillCity Council v Hamlin
Tort Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. ...
Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedSimilar Cases
Related Product Samples
These product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
| Tort Law | Negligence Law Notes (20 pages) |
Tort Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. ...
Since 2010, Oxbridge Notes has been a trusted education marketplace, supplying high-quality materials from top achievers at universities like Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Harvard, and Yale.