Price Waterhouse were the auditors of a law firm. It was later claimed that Price Waterhouse were negligent in their audits resulting in them losing their investments.
Held
As the purpose of the audits was for the protection of clients money, there was sufficient proximity to hold that PW owed them a duty of care, and were accordingly ordered to pay damages.
price, waterhouse, kwan, 2000, nzlr, cited, case, zealand, regarding, liability, negligent, misstatements, courtcourt, appeal, zealandfull, case, nameprice, waterhouse, appellant, kwan, others, respondents, between, price, waterhouse, appellant, hughes, hughes. Price Waterhouse v Kwan 2000 3 NZLR 39 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding liability for negligent misstatements 1 Price Waterhouse v KwanCourtCourt of Appeal of New ZealandFull case namePRICE WATERHOUSE Appellant AND P KWAN AND OTHERS Respondents AND BETWEEN PRICE WATERHOUSE Appellant AND K D HUGHES per N M HUGHES RespondentDecided16 December 1999Citation s 2000 3 NZLR 39Transcript s Court of Appeal judgmentCourt membershipJudge s sittingGault J Keith J Tipping JKeywordsnegligenceBackground EditPrice Waterhouse were the auditors of a law firm It was later claimed that Price Waterhouse were negligent in their audits resulting in them losing their investments Held EditAs the purpose of the audits was for the protection of clients money there was sufficient proximity to hold that PW owed them a duty of care and were accordingly ordered to pay damages 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 vte Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Price Waterhouse v Kwan amp oldid 1105574020, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
