82:
24:
221:
As a last result, Rush filed for a judicial review of
Rowling's decision, with Wild CJ later ruling that Rowling had no legal right to consider reversion to New Zealand ownership in his decision, directing Rowling to reconsider his decision again.
307:
200:
The lodge opened in 1970, but with an occupancy rate of less than 20%, the lodge closed in 1973. In the meantime, in 1971, Mr Rush's father in law died, resulting in the executor paying out the loan and seeking repayment by Takaro.
246:
The Privy
Council overturned the Court of Appeal judgment, ruling the minister had wider powers to make the decision than the Court of Appeal allowed, meaning that Rowling's decision at the time complied with the law.
238:
In the High Court, his claim was dismissed by the judge, but on appeal to the Court of Appeal, it was overturned, being awarded $ 300,000 in damages. Rowling appealed to the Privy
Council.
211:
However, at the time, under the
Reserve Bank Act for such a foreign investor to be able to buy shares in a New Zealand company, it required the consent of the Minister of Finance.
229:, a worldwide economic recession had begun to occur, causing Mitsubishi to reconsider whether to invest in a luxury lodge, and they ultimately pulled out of the deal.
197:
with the plan to develop a luxury lodge for wealthy visitors from overseas. The development was financed by a $ 1 million loan guaranteed by Rush's father in law.
218:
Rush then requested
Rowling to reconsider this decision on the basis that a refusal would cause severe financial hardship, but resulted in the same decision.
255:
This case makes it highly unlikely that a government minister could owe someone a duty of care. Whilst this case will often be contrasted with the case
215:, the finance minister at the time, refused to consent to the investment on the basis that he wanted the business to revert to a New Zealand owner.
151:
92:
193:
In 1968, Richard Rush, a wealthy businessman from the United States, purchased the 2,591 acre Takaro
Station from the Crown, that borders
312:
285:
317:
259:
NZLR 308 where a
Minister was held to owe a duty of care, this decision was made at the lower level of the Court of Appeal.
185:
Takaro
Properties Limited v Rowling UKPC 34 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding negligence by the government
322:
256:
159:
167:
53:
204:
Due to the financial difficulties, Takaro sought to sell 90% of the shares to the
Japanese company
34:
281:
81:
235:
Rush later sued
Rowling in tort, claiming he was negligent in his decision making process.
226:
163:
136:
301:
212:
194:
132:
128:
205:
155:
103:
Wallace Edward Rowling and The Attorney General v Takaro Properties Limited
43:
23:
308:
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council cases on appeal from New Zealand
208:, which planned to develop a golf course and up to 136 holiday homes.
232:
Soon after, the lodge was placed into receivership and was sold.
17:
48:
38:
173:
147:
142:
124:
116:
108:
98:
88:
74:
8:
80:
71:
268:
93:Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
7:
278:Butterworths Student Companion Torts
225:By now however, as a result of the
14:
22:
75:Takaro Properties Ltd v Rowling
1:
280:(4th ed.). LexisNexis.
339:
313:New Zealand tort case law
257:Meates v Attorney-General
178:
79:
160:Lord Brandon of Oakbrook
133:Court of Appeal judgment
318:1987 in New Zealand law
37:, as no other articles
168:Lord Goff of Chieveley
276:McLay, Geoff (2003).
137:Privy Council ruling
129:High Court judgment
251:Legal Significance
56:for suggestions.
46:to this page from
183:
182:
70:
69:
330:
323:1987 in case law
292:
291:
273:
143:Court membership
112:30 November 1987
84:
72:
65:
62:
51:
49:related articles
26:
18:
338:
337:
333:
332:
331:
329:
328:
327:
298:
297:
296:
295:
288:
275:
274:
270:
265:
253:
244:
191:
66:
60:
57:
47:
44:introduce links
27:
12:
11:
5:
336:
334:
326:
325:
320:
315:
310:
300:
299:
294:
293:
286:
267:
266:
264:
261:
252:
249:
243:
240:
227:Yom Kippur War
190:
187:
181:
180:
176:
175:
171:
170:
164:Lord Templeman
154:of Clashfern,
149:
148:Judges sitting
145:
144:
140:
139:
126:
122:
121:
118:
114:
113:
110:
106:
105:
100:
99:Full case name
96:
95:
90:
86:
85:
77:
76:
68:
67:
61:September 2015
54:Find link tool
30:
28:
21:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
335:
324:
321:
319:
316:
314:
311:
309:
306:
305:
303:
289:
287:0-408-71686-X
283:
279:
272:
269:
262:
260:
258:
250:
248:
241:
239:
236:
233:
230:
228:
223:
219:
216:
214:
209:
207:
202:
198:
196:
188:
186:
177:
172:
169:
165:
161:
157:
153:
150:
146:
141:
138:
135:
134:
130:
127:
123:
119:
115:
111:
107:
104:
101:
97:
94:
91:
87:
83:
78:
73:
64:
55:
50:
45:
41:
40:
36:
31:This article
29:
25:
20:
19:
16:
277:
271:
254:
245:
237:
234:
231:
224:
220:
217:
213:Bill Rowling
210:
203:
199:
195:Lake Te Anau
192:
184:
131:
102:
58:
32:
15:
152:Lord MacKay
302:Categories
263:References
206:Mitsubishi
189:Background
179:negligence
156:Lord Keith
125:Transcript
52:; try the
39:link to it
42:. Please
174:Keywords
117:Citation
120:UKPC 34
109:Decided
284:
35:orphan
33:is an
89:Court
282:ISBN
242:Held
304::
166:,
162:,
158:,
290:.
63:)
59:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
