First Defendant Summary
The First Defendant, Second Defendant and Third Defendant, collectively as the ‘Defendants’, refer to the 29th of March 2017 statement of claim and say:
Summary 1. The Plaintiffs describe paragraphs 1 to 7 of their 29th of March 2017 statement of claim as being a summary of their case.
2. In the paragraphs that follow 1 to 7 they then set their substantive allegations.
3. As the Defendants respond below to each and all of those allegations, there appears to be no requirement for them to plead to the summary set out in paragraphs in 1 to 7.
4. However, in case that is a requirement to do so, they deny each and every allegation in those paragraphs.
Background
5. They admit that the Plaintiffs entered the Herne Bay agreement, but save …show more content…
They admit the Plaintiffs consulted the Third Defendant, but save as expressly admitted, they deny paragraph 15. The Plaintiffs signed in spite of the Third Defendant’s advice.
13. They admit paragraph 16. They add that the Plaintiffs gave actual possession to the Second Defendant’s daughter.
14. They have no knowledge of the truth or otherwise of the allegations in paragraph 17 and so deny each and every one of them. The Second Defendant had no reason to believe that the Onehunga property would be used for manufacturing methamphetamine. Any prior concern he had regarding the tenant’s recreational drug use had been disclosed to the Plaintiffs by the First Defendant.
15. They admit the Herne Bay settlement did not occur, but save as expressly admitted, they have insufficient knowledge of the allegations in paragraph 18, and so deny them.
16. They have insufficient knowledge of paragraph 19, and so deny it. Any money the Plaintiffs spent on agency and legal fees were not in waste.
First cause of action: breach of duty of care
17. They admit paragraph 20, and repeat their response in paragraph 6.
18. They admit paragraph …show more content…
21. They admit paragraph 24.
22. They deny paragraph 25. The Third Defendant did not give negligent advice as:
(a) he repeatedly advised the Plaintiffs against signing the Onehunga agreement in its presented form;
(b) he counselled the Plaintiffs to go back to the Herne Bay developer to try and negotiate a postponed settlement date, and that he would support them in that endeavour; and
(c) he had prepared a careful disclaimer of responsibility for the Plaintiffs signing the Onehunga agreement, which had set out all the risks. The Plaintiffs signed this disclaimer.
Second cause of action: breach of fiduciary duty
23. They admit paragraph 26, and repeat their response in paragraph 6. 24. They admit paragraph 27.
25. They deny paragraph 28, and repeat their paragraph 19 in response.
26. They admit paragraph 29.
27. They deny paragraph 30, and repeat their paragraph 22 in response.
As a further or alternative defence, the Defendants repeat the foregoing and say:
28. If the Defendants are liable to the Plaintiffs in any respect (which is denied) the Plaintiffs contributed to any loss they suffered
Summary 1. The Plaintiffs describe paragraphs 1 to 7 of their 29th of March 2017 statement of claim as being a summary of their case.
2. In the paragraphs that follow 1 to 7 they then set their substantive allegations.
3. As the Defendants respond below to each and all of those allegations, there appears to be no requirement for them to plead to the summary set out in paragraphs in 1 to 7.
4. However, in case that is a requirement to do so, they deny each and every allegation in those paragraphs.
Background
5. They admit that the Plaintiffs entered the Herne Bay agreement, but save …show more content…
They admit the Plaintiffs consulted the Third Defendant, but save as expressly admitted, they deny paragraph 15. The Plaintiffs signed in spite of the Third Defendant’s advice.
13. They admit paragraph 16. They add that the Plaintiffs gave actual possession to the Second Defendant’s daughter.
14. They have no knowledge of the truth or otherwise of the allegations in paragraph 17 and so deny each and every one of them. The Second Defendant had no reason to believe that the Onehunga property would be used for manufacturing methamphetamine. Any prior concern he had regarding the tenant’s recreational drug use had been disclosed to the Plaintiffs by the First Defendant.
15. They admit the Herne Bay settlement did not occur, but save as expressly admitted, they have insufficient knowledge of the allegations in paragraph 18, and so deny them.
16. They have insufficient knowledge of paragraph 19, and so deny it. Any money the Plaintiffs spent on agency and legal fees were not in waste.
First cause of action: breach of duty of care
17. They admit paragraph 20, and repeat their response in paragraph 6.
18. They admit paragraph …show more content…
21. They admit paragraph 24.
22. They deny paragraph 25. The Third Defendant did not give negligent advice as:
(a) he repeatedly advised the Plaintiffs against signing the Onehunga agreement in its presented form;
(b) he counselled the Plaintiffs to go back to the Herne Bay developer to try and negotiate a postponed settlement date, and that he would support them in that endeavour; and
(c) he had prepared a careful disclaimer of responsibility for the Plaintiffs signing the Onehunga agreement, which had set out all the risks. The Plaintiffs signed this disclaimer.
Second cause of action: breach of fiduciary duty
23. They admit paragraph 26, and repeat their response in paragraph 6. 24. They admit paragraph 27.
25. They deny paragraph 28, and repeat their paragraph 19 in response.
26. They admit paragraph 29.
27. They deny paragraph 30, and repeat their paragraph 22 in response.
As a further or alternative defence, the Defendants repeat the foregoing and say:
28. If the Defendants are liable to the Plaintiffs in any respect (which is denied) the Plaintiffs contributed to any loss they suffered