This article needs additional citations for verification. (October 2014) |
Boyd Knight v Purdue [1999] 2 NZLR 278 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding liability for negligent misstatements [1]
| Boyd Knight v Purdue | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Court of Appeal of New Zealand |
| Full case name | Boyd Knight v Purdue |
| Decided | 23 March 1999 |
| Citation(s) | [1999] 2 NZLR 278 |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | Gault P, Blanchard J, Salmon J |
| Keywords | |
| negligence | |
Background edit
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 edit
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 edit
- ^ McLay, Geoff (2003). Butterworths Student Companion Torts (4th ed.). LexisNexis. ISBN 0-408-71686-X.
 | This article relating to case law in New Zealand is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |