Exercise 012 | Law

Exercise 012

Deceit and Negligence: Noel Richard Johnson v Robert Arthur Felton and Norah Isobel Felton & Ors [2000] NZCA 384 (13 December 2000)

click here to download this document
click here (AustLII link) to view the case

Easy questions

  1. How would you cite the case?
  2. In what court was this case heard?
  3. What type of case was it - civil, criminal, appellate, first instance?
  4. Who was the appellant?
  5. Who appeared for the respondents?
  6. From what case and court was it appealed?
  7. What were the material facts of the case?
  8. Who was the judge?
  9. Who was the judge in the case from which this was appealed?
  10. What were the respondents seeking?
  11. What was the basis of the respondents' claims?
  12. What was the outcome of the case?
  13. Explain the following terms:
    1. tort
    2. deceit
    3. negligence
    4. misrepresentations

More difficult questions

  1. What case did Gault J refer to in relation to the elements of the tort of deceit?
    1. What were these elements?
  2. To what extent did Gault J find that:
    1. the appellant had made representations to the plaintiffs?
    2. the representations were of existing fact?
    3. the representations were false at the time they were made?
    4. the plaintiffs relied on such representations with resulting harm?
    5. the representations were made either knowingly or recklessly?
  3. What were the appellant's contentions regarding the judgment of Goddard J?
  4. How did Gault J deal with the submissions by the appellant regarding:
    1. the misuse of the advantage of seeing and hearing witnesses?
    2. findings inconsistent with other evidence?
    3. the evidence of Mr Lennox King?
    4. the credibility of Mr van Nooijen?

Complex questions

  1. To what extent did Gault J agree with criticism of the findings of Goddard J?
    1. How much effect did this have on the outcome of the case?
  2. What did Gault J mean in saying that Goddard J did not misuse the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses?
  3. Does this case follow precedent?
  4. What proposition of law (ratio decidendi) do you think this case stands for?