9.05.2018

Jensen v Rameka [2014] NZHC 1720

In 2003 the law firm Jensen Waymouth assisted Mrs Rameka in making a Will.  In November 2005, when Mrs Rameka was seriously ill in hospital, a second Will was prepared by the firm and Mrs Rameka’s de facto partner attended to its execution.  After Mrs Rameka died, probate was granted in respect of the second Will, but it was later declared to be invalid because Mrs Rameka’s testamentary capacity had not been established.  The invalidity of the second Will meant the prior, first Will, would have had effect, but Jensen Waymouth had destroyed the first Will and all records of the instructions from which it had been prepared.  In 2011 a claim was brought against the firm by a beneficiary under the first Will for $30,000 in exemplary damages (compensatory damages were not sought).

In the District Court, the firm conceded it owed a duty of care to the plaintiff not to destroy the first Will which it had breached, but submitted the circumstances were such that exemplary damages were not appropriate.  Although no case where exemplary damages had been awarded in a claim for legal professional negligence was identified by either counsel or the Court, the Judge awarded exemplary damages of $30,000.  The firm appealed against the award of exemplary damages and the quantum.

The High Court, following the reasoning in Couch v Attorney-General [2010] 3 NZLR 149 (SC) and Bottrill v A [2003] 2 NZLR 721 (PC), considered the issue was whether the firm’s actions met the test of subjective recklessness.  It confirmed the lower Court’s findings that the firm had a policy requiring express instructions before destroying a prior Will; no such prior instructions had been obtained; they were aware a prior Will could have effect if a subsequent Will was invalid; and it was “inconceivable” the firm was unaware of the potential prejudice in the event the first Will was destroyed.  The Court upheld the award of exemplary damages.

The level of damages was reduced by the Court from $30,000 to $23,000, based on principles identified by the Court of Appeal (McDermott v Wallace [2005] 3 NZLR 661 (CA)), consistent with precedent.  While awards of exemplary damages are relatively few in number and limited in quantum in New Zealand, they often fall in the $20,000 to $25,000 range, with the high watermark being around $100,000.  Those at the higher end are typically sexual abuse cases.

The case is of interest insofar as it reinforces the conservative view the New Zealand courts take towards awards of exemplary damages.  But perhaps more significantly the judgment makes it clear the door is open for exemplary damages claims against solicitors and other professionals for breach of professional duty.

Back to Summary Table

Do you need expert legal advice?
Contact the expert team at Hesketh Henry.
Kerry_100x100 1
Media contact - Kerry Browne
Please contact Kerry with any media enquiries and with any questions related to marketing or sponsorships on +64 9 375 8747 or via email.

Related Articles / Insights & Opinion

Updated Subcontract Agreement: SA-2017
The SA-2009 form of Subcontract Agreement is commonly used in the construction industry. It has undergone a review and a new SA-2017 form has been produced.
3.07.2018 Posted in Construction Law & Health & Safety Law
Distribution Agreements – 6 Key Considerations
While the exact nature and terms of a distribution agreement will vary between industries and jurisdictions, these 6 issues will always be important.
28.06.2018 Posted in Corporate & Commercial law
Continued Importance of IP Protection for Manufacturers
The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) has recently released a report which identified key trends and challenges for the manufacturing sector (that report can be accessed here). Th...
28.06.2018 Posted in Corporate & Commercial law
CONSTRUCTION LAW UPDATE – JUNE 2018
Recent Construction Law Decisions and Developments in New Zealand
18.06.2018 Posted in Construction Law
Updated Standard Consultancy Agreements
Two of the most commonly used standard agreements to engage consultants are the ACENZ / Engineering New Zealand (formerly IPENZ) Short Form Agreement (“SFA”) and the Conditions of Contract for Consultancy Services (“CCCS”).
5.06.2018 Posted in Construction Law
Managing Employees’ Mental Health Issues
Ministry of Health statistics confirm that during 2016, 169,454 people accessed mental health services in New Zealand. The law of averages suggests that most workplaces will – to a lesser or greater degree – be affected at some time by an employee’s mental health issue.
31.05.2018 Posted in Employment Law & Health & Safety Law
Managing Medical Incapacity: Enough To Make You Feel Sick?
Managers and HR practitioners often tell us that dealing with employees who are genuinely too sick or injured to work is one of their least favourite tasks. Frankly, we can see why.
31.05.2018 Posted in Employment Law
Send us an enquiry
For expert legal advice, please complete the form below or call us on (09) 375 8700.
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.