Tomov v Auckland Council [2012] NZWHT Auckland 48 [pdf, 101 KB]
...was deliberately misleading. The claimants contend that had the concession been made (as it should have been, given the Chair’s Directions7) they would not have needed to brief Mr Gill at all. [13] The claimants further argue that the defence run by the Council that it may have placed reliance on a producer statement for the cladding installation, when there was no producer statement on the Council file, was always without substantial merit and again put the claimants to...