Boyd Knight v Purdue
This article needs additional citations for verification. (October 2014) |
Boyd Knight v Purdue | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Court | Court of Appeal of New Zealand |
Full case name | Boyd Knight v Purdue |
Decided | 23 March 1999 |
Citation | [1999] 2 NZLR 278 |
Court membership | |
Judges sitting | Gault P, Blanchard J, Salmon J |
Keywords | |
negligence |
Boyd Knight v Purdue [1999] 2 NZLR 278 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding liability for negligent misstatements [1]
Background
After losing their investment of $750,000 in Burbery Mortgage Finance & Savings Ltd, the plaintiffs sued the auditors to recover their investment, on the basis that without their audit certificate, that under the Securities Act, there would not have been a prospectus, and so no investment in the first place.
In the High Court, they won their claim, albeit reduced by 50% due to contributory negligence due to the fact that it was a speculative investment in the first place.
The auditors appealed.
Held
The Court of Appeal reversed the High Courts award of damages, on the basis that the plaintiff's had admitted they had not read the advert as a "true and fair view" of the accounts.
References
- ^ McLay, Geoff (2003). Butterworths Student Companion Torts (4th ed.). LexisNexis. ISBN 0-408-71686-X.
- Use dmy dates from July 2019
- Articles needing additional references from October 2014
- All articles needing additional references
- Orphaned articles from October 2014
- All orphaned articles
- Court of Appeal of New Zealand cases
- New Zealand tort case law
- 1992 in case law
- 1992 in New Zealand law
- All stub articles
- New Zealand case law stubs