Rolls-Royce New Zealand Ltd v Carter Holt Harvey Ltd
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Full case name ROLLS-ROYCE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Appellant v CARTER HOLT HARVEY LIMITED Respondent And Strike-Out Respondent AND GENESIS POWER LIMITED Strike-Out Applicant
Decided23 June 2004
Citation[2005] 1 NZLR 324
| Rolls-Royce New Zealand Ltd v Carter Holt Harvey Ltd | |
|---|---|
| Court | Court of Appeal of New Zealand |
| Full case name | ROLLS-ROYCE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Appellant v CARTER HOLT HARVEY LIMITED Respondent And Strike-Out Respondent AND GENESIS POWER LIMITED Strike-Out Applicant |
| Decided | 23 June 2004 |
| Citation | [2005] 1 NZLR 324 |
| Transcript | Court of Appeal judgment |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Gault P, Anderson J, Glazebrook J |
| Keywords | |
| negligence | |
Rolls-Royce New Zealand Ltd v Carter Holt Harvey Ltd [2005] 1 NZLR 324 is decision of the Court of Appeal of New Zealand regarding tort claims in situations where a claim can be in both tort and contract.[1]