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(s) | [1999] 2 NZLR 278 |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) 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[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. |