CASE LAW - LAWS101

Facts of cases and the legal rules that arose from them.

Attorney General v Smith [2018] - facts

Prisoner wanted to wear a wig to cover up his baldness and was allowed to do so. Fled the country and on his return the permission to wear the wig was revoked. He went to court with the claim that his freedom of expression had been compromised.

Attorney General v Smith - legal rule

Wearing a wig is not an example of expressive content and so Smith was not protected under the act (NZBORA).

Attorney General v Smith - reasoning

Freedom of expression must convey meaning, and Mr Smith’s purpose of wearing the wig was for self esteem purposes. Did not convey a message.

Bridges v Hawkesworth [1851] - facts

Banknotes were found in the defendant’s shop, discovered by the plaintiff. The plaintiff gave the notes to the defendant, and after the true owner never came to claim them, the plaintiff asked for them as the finder, but the defendant refused.

Bridges v Hawkesworth [1851] - legal rule

Finders keepers. Plaintiff was entitled to the banknotes.

Bridges v Hawkesworth [1851] - reasoning

The notes were dropped without the intention of giving ownership to the defendant, regardless of them being in his shop. If the issue of them being there had not been communicated to him by the plaintiff, he would not have known they were there. The finder of an object can claim ownership with exemption from the claim of the true owner.

Parker v British Airways Board [1982] - facts

Parker, a passenger, found a bracelet in a BA lounge. He handed the bracelet to lounge employees along with his information so that he could be contacted if it wasn’t claimed. The owner never came forward and BAB sold the bracelet, keeping the proceeds. Parker took this to court.

Parker v British Airways Board [1982] - legal rule

An occupier (owner) of a building where an item is found has superior rights to those of the finder, but only if the occupier has manifested an intention to exercise control over the building and the things on or in it.

Parker v British Airways Board [1982] - reasoning

The BAB had made no clear notice to those visiting the lounge that any items found there would belong to them. Also, the employees were not actively seeking to find lost articles in the lounge and claim them.

Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] - facts

Donoghue was having an ice cream float with her friend and discovered that inside her ginger beer bottle were the remains of a decayed snail. She suffered gastroenteritis and shock. Donoghue issued proceedings against the manufacturer.

Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] - legal rule

The neighbour principle. A manufacturer owes a duty of care to the ultimate consumer of a product if it is reasonably foreseeable that their negligence could cause harm to that consumer.

Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] - reasoning

Neighbour principle - owing a duty of care.

Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1936] - facts

Grant purchased some underpants from the defendant and suffered severe dermatitis in his ankles as a result of sulphites being present in the material. He sued AKM for negligence and relied on Donoghue.

Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1936] - legal rule

Manufacturers can be held liable for negligence if latent defects in their products cause injury to any consumer. A manufacturer owes a duty of care towards the consumer. He must exercise reasonable care when he understands that the failure to take reasonable care could cause injury to the consumer.

Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1936] - reasoning

The court established that manufacturers owe a duty of care to the ultimate consumer of their products, even if there isn't direct contact between the two.

Herschtal v Stewart and Ardern Ltd [1939] - facts

The plaintiff was driving a hired car, and when turning a corner, a wheel flew off, causing him shock and other injuries. It was later discovered that the nuts securing the wheel on were not properly tightened. The plaintiff took the defendants to court for negligence.

Herschtal v Stewart and Ardern [1939] - legal rule

Defendants are found to have a duty of care towards the plaintiff due to the neighbour principle.

Herschtal v Stewart and Ardern [1939] - reasoning

Defendants were the plaintiff's neighbour and could not have reasonably anticipated examination revealing a defect. Although it was possible for the buyer to have inspected the wheel before driving, it was not reasonable to have expected him to have done so.

Bolton v Stone [1951] - facts

Cricketers were playing a game and hit the ball over the 7-foot fence, into a nearby road, striking the defendant.

Bolton v Stone [1951] - legal rule

A defendant is not liable for negligence if the risk of harm, while foreseeable, is very low and the precautions necessary to eliminate the risk would be unduly burdensome or impractical. In essence, the case clarifies that negligence requires not just foreseeability of harm, but also a reasonable probability that such harm will occur.

Bolton v Stone [1951] - reasoning

The court found that the club had taken reasonable precautions to avoid such risk, and that the probability of such an event occurring was so low. It was an all-around ‘exceptional hit.’

Miller v Jackson [1977] - facts

A housing estate was built on the boundaries of a well-established cricket pitch. It wasn’t uncommon for cricket balls to end up in the properties of those neighbouring houses. The Millers were so disturbed by the playing of cricket that they would leave their home on weekends. The Millers sued for an injunction and claimed nuisance and negligence.

Miller v Jackson [1977] - legal rule

The court recognised a duty of care existed, as the risk of balls landing on the Millers' property was foreseeable, and the club couldn't prevent it entirely.

Miller v Jackson [1977] - reasoning

The court determined that the cricket club owed a duty of care to the Millers, as it was foreseeable that cricket balls would be hit onto their property. The club was found negligent for failing to prevent the balls from landing on the Millers' property, especially given the proximity of the new housing development. The injunction was not granted, as the public interest in continuing the cricket was balanced with the Millers’ right to enjoy their property.

Russel v McCabe [1962] - facts

Russel lit a fire on her farmland, and it spread. A volunteer (with experience) got involved in fighting the fire and suffered injury. He claimed Russel was liable for his injuries.

Russel v McCabe [1962] - legal rule

A duty of care is able to extend beyond ‘neighbour,’ when the person involved can be reasonably foreseen to intervene (ie, Russel knew that if the fire spread, it is likely for people to jump in and help). Does a duty extend to volunteers?

Russel v McCabe [1962] - reasoning

The court said the fireman acted reasonably, as the emergency was serious and urgent, and the intervention was foreseeable by the defendant. A significant factor in deciding this is that he was a trained firefighter and not just a meddler with a watering can.

Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd. v Home Office [1969] - facts

Young offenders escaped a Borstal institution and caused damage to a yacht. The guards responsible for monitoring them went to bed early. The yacht owners claimed that the Home Office was responsible for the damage, due to the negligence of the prison guards.

Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd. v Home Office [1969] - legal rule

A government body (or employer) can be held liable for the negligent actions of a third party under their supervision, if those actions are a foreseeable consequence of their own failure to exercise reasonable care.

Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd. v Home Office [1969] - reasoning

The core reasoning was that the Home Office, as the employer of the officers, owed a duty of care to prevent foreseeable harm to others, including the yacht owner, by the borstal boys. The court found that the escape of the boys and the subsequent damage to the yacht were foreseeable consequences of the officers' negligence in maintaining adequate supervision.

Bradley v Wingnut Films Ltd. [1993] - facts

The plaintiff’s family tombstone appears in a splatter film made at a cemetery. This made the plaintiff and his family extremely upset, so he filed for the film to not be produced.

Bradley v Wingnut Films Ltd. [1993] - legal rule

This case is the first in the line of privacy tort in NZ. Established that there must be:

• public disclosure

• of private facts

• that are highly offensive and objectionable to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities

Bradley v Wingnut Films Ltd. [1993] - reasoning

The plaintiff’s case failed due to the fleeting appearance of the tombstone, and the film crew did not intentionally inflict harm or mean to cause distress.

Hosking v Runting [2004] - facts

Photographer took photos of the Hosking's twin infants (without consent) while they were out in public with their mother.

• Mike Hosking had a degree of celebrity status.

• The magazine wanted to publish photos in its Christmas edition.

• Alleged breach of privacy - not on parents' behalf, on the children's.

Hosking v Runting [2004] - legal rule

The NZ CA established that a tort of invasion of privacy exists in NZ. The court also outlined two key requirements for a privacy claim: the existence of facts where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, and publicity given to those facts that would be considered highly offensive to an objective, reasonable person.

Hosking v Runting [2004] - reasoning

Most reasoning about whether or not the court should recognise an invasion of privacy tort. The Court of Appeal's reasoning involved balancing the right to privacy with freedom of expression, and determining whether the publication of the photographs was highly offensive to a person of ordinary sensibilities.

Andrews v Television New Zealand Ltd. [2006] - facts

Mr and Mrs Andrews were in a car accident, and when emergency services arrived, so did a film crew. Footage of them was then published on national television without their knowledge. They didn’t like this, and took TVNZ to court for damages.

Andrews v Television New Zealand Ltd. [2006] - legal rule

A claim for invasion of privacy must involve a reasonable expectation of privacy, and that the disclosure of this information must be highly offensive to a reasonable person.

Andrews v Television New Zealand Ltd. [2006] - reasoning

The plaintiff was established to have had a REOP, however, the court decided that the information published was not highly offensive. The case demonstrates the need to balance the right to privacy with freedom of expression and the public interest. 

C v Holland [2012] - facts

Creepy peepy. Holland was the flatmate of C’s boyfriend and installed a camera in a gap in the ceiling above the shower. He filmed C in the shower and, C and boyfriend found the footage on the defendant’s computer. There was no publication of the footage, but C was highly distressed.

C v Holland [2012] - legal rule

The tort of intrusion into seclusion. A person can be held liable for intentionally intruding into another person's private affairs, even if no private information is disclosed or published.

C v Holland [2012] - reasoning

Based on the principle that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in intimate spaces like bathrooms, and that intentionally intruding upon that space, even without public disclosure, can be a tortious act. The court found that the defendant's actions, specifically recording the plaintiff in the shower with clear views of her intimate areas, constituted a significant breach of her privacy and caused her emotional distress.

Faesenkloet v Jenkin [2014] - facts

Two neighbours that had fallen out over the years - J put a camera on his garage that captured footage of the driveway leading up to F’s house. F saw the camera as an intentional intrusion into seclusion.

Faesenkloet v Jenkin [2014] - legal rule

A reasonable expectation of privacy does not extend to a shared driveway, especially when it's visible from the public street and mundane activities are taking place. The case clarified that while intrusion into seclusion requires an intentional and unauthourised intrusion into private matters, it does not apply to areas like a shared driveway, where there isn't a high expectation of privacy.

Faesenkloet v Jenkin [2014] - reasoning

There was no REOP, and none of the footage that the camera captured or could capture was highly offensive. The court took into account that the driveway was not exclusively Faesenkloet's property, was visible from the public road, and was not used for private activities. An interim injunction was put in place, but then the court lifted it, finding no legal basis for the claim.

Henderson v Walker [2019] - facts

Walker was a liquidator of one of Henderson’s businesses. In the process of seizing relevant documents for the business, Walker found private emails on H’s computer, and distributed them to a small group.

Henderson v Walker [2019] - legal rule

A liquidator can be held liable for invasion of privacy when they share a former director's personal documents obtained under search warrants. The court also recognized that digital assets should be afforded protection under property law.

Henderson v Walker [2019] - reasoning

The legal reasoning behind the court's decision centered on the liquidator's breach of confidence and invasion of privacy regarding personal information obtained from a company director's laptop. The court found that while the liquidator, Mr. Walker, had a right to access company documents under search warrants, he exceeded his authority by distributing personal and private information to third parties. Not hugely offensive, but still met the threshold.