LAWS623 LAW OF TORTS 2025 WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT

DUE DATE: Submission to Canvas by Monday 11th August (Week 4) at 9.00 am

INTRODUCTION

This assignment relates to negligent misstatement. You are required to undertake your own reading and research on the topic – although some of the issues were discussed during our consideration of negligence generally in semester 1, there will be no classes (lectures or workshops) delivered on this particular topic (Module 6).

You can find information on negligent misstatement generally in –

• The cases uploaded to Canvas in Course resources* (Liability for statements /
Negligent misstatement)

• Module 6 on Canvas (this is available on Canvas)

• Stephen Todd et al, Todd on Torts (9th ed 2023) at 247 – 268

You are referred specifically to the following two cases (available on Canvas in Course Resources*) to which some of the questions below relate –

• Williams v Hacking [2017] NZHC 799

• Carter Holt Harvey Ltd v Minister of Education [2015] NZCA 321 paras [1]-[21] and paras [101]-[128]. Note: The Court of Appeal ordered the negligent misstatement claim to be struck out. On appeal to the Supreme Court1 that order was quashed. You are directed to the decision of the Court of Appeal rather than to that of the Supreme Court because the discussion of the negligent misstatement claim is more expansive in the former. You are not required to consider the Supreme Court’s decision – although you are of course welcome to do so if you wish.

I suggest you download the cases via the Court Ready PDF Tab

*NOTE: You will not be able to access the relevant cases directly through the Course Resources Tab; instead access is available through Canvas at: Modules / Semester 2 / Talis Aspire – LAWS623 – Law of Torts: Liability for Statements / Negligent Misstatement

Please read carefully the Presentation and Submission Requirements and the Marking Criteria provided below. In particular, you should note the assessment requirements in relation to referencing.

REQUIRED – ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS

Your assignment will be assessed holistically (ie an overall grade / mark will be awarded for your submissions). Indications are provided as to an approximate number of words to be used in answering the questions – and those also provide an approximate guide to the weighting which the respective questions carry in the overall grade to be awarded.

1. Briefly summarise the facts in Williams v Hacking and set out the substantive legal issue(s) in Mr William’s claim against the defendants.

(300 words)

2. Identify the three defendants in the case. What are their respective roles in the narrative?

(50 words)

3. This specific High Court proceeding only involves one of those defendants. Why?

(25 words)

4. What is Mr Jefferson required to establish in order to succeed in this proceeding? Briefly, what is the Judge’s decision in that regard?

(100 words)

5. What are the three causes of action raised in Mr Williams’ statement of claim against Mr Jefferson? Briefly explain why the Judge decides to focus on the claim for negligent misstatement.

(75 words)

6. In Hedley Byrne v Heller and Partners [1964] AC 465 (HL) Lord Reid (at 482) stated that while being “a very important decision”, Donohue v Stevenson does not have “any direct bearing” on a case involving negligent words. With reference to the overriding policy reason(s) explain in your own words why the law has found it necessary to treat negligent words differently to negligent acts.

(150 words)

7. Briefly set out the elements which the plaintiff is required to prove to establish a claim for negligent misstatement?

(50 words)

8. In your own words, explain how the New Zealand courts characterise the nature of the relationship necessary for there to be a duty of care owed to the plaintiff in relation to negligent misstatements. Is this approach consistent with the general Anns approach which is applied in cases involving negligent acts? Explain.

(250 words)

9. Explain fully what the courts mean when they talk about the necessity for finding an assumption of responsibility. (350 words)

10. In Williams v Hacking, on what basis does Mr Jefferson argue that he has not assumed responsibility to Mr Williams? Briefly explain what the Judge says in relation to that argument.

(200 words)

11. The New Zealand courts consistently refer to Lord Oliver’s statement in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman2 where he identifies the requirements which “typically exist” to establish the “necessary relationship” between a person making a statement and the person who acts in reliance on it. The third requirement in Lord Oliver’s statement is that, “it is known either actually or inferentially, that the advice so communicated is likely to be acted upon by the advisee for that purpose without independent inquiry”. In your own words explain briefly how the formulation of that requirement might assist Mr Jefferson.

(100 words)

12. In relation to the facts and proceedings in Williams v Hacking, explain in your own words the Judge’s “difficulties” in relation to that aspect of Lord Oliver’s third requirement and how he deals with those difficulties.

(500 words)

13. In relation to negligent misstatement generally, how is the causation requirement satisfied? In your own words, briefly explain the arguments on the facts of the respective parties in Williams v Hacking in that regard.

(200 words)

14. For a period from 2021 onwards, as a result of Covid, there were serious supply chain issues which led to severe shortages of building materials in New Zealand. Assume that a factual matrix similar to that present in Carter Holt Harvey Ltd v Minister of Education occurred during that period; if, because of the supply chain issues, the customer had no choice other than to purchase the impugned cladding products, explain how, if at all, the arguments in relation to negligent misstatement (see para [102]) might have been affected. Identify any additional information which you consider might be required to answer this question fully.

(200 words)

WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT : PRESENTATION AND SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

This assignment may account for 15% of your final mark on the Law of Torts course. The assessment structure for LAWS623 is set out below. Note that PLUSAGE is available where you have obtained at least 50% on the written assignment and the mid-year exam.

a. Your assignment SHOULD NOT EXCEED 2500 WORDS IN TOTAL.
NOTE: You may be able to complete the assignment in less than 2500 words; you should be as detailed and thorough as you need to be in order to answer the questions but what you write should also be concise, focused and to the point.

Note : your assignment should include appropriate citations and references included in footnotes (see below) but footnotes are not included in the word count.

b. Make sure you understand the rules relating to academic dishonesty set out in the Law School Handbook. The completed assignment you submit must be your own work and substantially written in your own words. PLEASE DO NOT USE ANY GENERATIVE AI IN COMPLETING YOUR ASSIGNMENT.

c. ACCURATE AND COMPREHENSIVE REFERENCING IS REQUIRED. Ensure that you provide pinpoint references to the relevant paragraphs or passages from the cases and any other primary and/or secondary sources which you use. Relevant references should be provided in footnotes and in accordance with the rules and conventions set out in McLay, Murray, Orpin, New Zealand Law Style Guide (3rd ed, The Law Foundation 2018).

d. You are required to upload your completed assignment to Canvas by 9.00 AM ON MONDAY 11th AUGUST 2025 (WEEK 4).

e. It is your responsibility to ensure that you upload the correct file to Canvas for marking – please check to see that you have done so! Canvas has been set up to allow you a maximum of 3 attempts at submission so, if you upload the incorrect file (or if you wish to amend your submitted work), you have two further opportunities to submit a substitute before the deadline. The latest version submitted at the deadline is the version that will be marked.

f. Penalties will be applied to late submissions (see the Law School Handbook). If you have valid reasons for not submitting by the deadline you must complete a Special Consideration Application (SCA). Information on SCAs is also included in the Law School Handbook.

Note: the maximum extension which will be permitted on this assignment is TWO WEEKS from the specified time for submission – ie NO EXTENSIONS WILL BE APPROVED BEYOND MONDAY 25TH AUGUST 2025 AT 9.00 AM. All requests for extensions should be made through the online SCA process and should be supported by appropriate evidence.

WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT: MARKING CRITERIA

Your assignment will be assessed holistically (ie an overall grade / mark will be awarded for your submissions). Indications are provided as to an approximate number of words to be used in answering the questions – and those also provide an approximate guide to the weighting which the respective questions carry in the overall grade to be awarded.

The following provides an indication of the overall general criteria on which marks will be awarded –

1. Substantive content (around 75% of the marks)
Your answers to the individual questions should demonstrate a sound understanding of the
issues raised by the respective questions and a thorough and accurate discussion of the facts and / or legal principles relevant to those issues.

2. Presentation, communication and referencing (around 25% of the marks)
There should be: coherency and focus in the presentation and structure of your answers; logical argument and clarity of expression; use of appropriate language and style; correct syntax and grammar; comprehensive and accurate referencing of primary and secondary sources provided in footnotes which are correctly presented in accordance with the rules and conventions set out
in the NZLSG.

LAWS623: ASSESSMENT STRUCTURE

Note: THE BASIC ASSESSMENT STRUCTURE IS SET OUT IN THE TABLE BELOW – this is the default position which applies if you have not satisfied the requirements for plusage (see above).

PLUSAGE

PLUSAGE CAN ONLY APPLY IF YOU OBTAIN AT LEAST 50% IN BOTH THE MID-YEAR EXAM AND THE WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT

1. The higher percentage mark from the mid-year exam and the written assignment (VALUE X) will be the figure taken to determine how plusage will apply;

2. Where VALUE X is higher than the percentage mark obtained in the FINAL EXAM (VALUE Y), VALUE X will account for 30% of the total assessment for LAWS623;

3. Where VALUE Y is higher than VALUE X, VALUE X will be discounted and VALUE Y will account for 90% of the total assessment on LAWS623 (the remaining 10% is based on your workshop attendance and participation).