Duty of care may differ across up to 24,000 firms hit by tower collapse, ruling finds
The High Court has refused two businesses’ bid for an opt-out class action against Transpower covering up to 24,000 firms hit by Northland’s 2024 outage.
In Skibo Limited v Transpower New Zealand Limited [2026] NZHC 3275, released 21 October 2026, the court found that whether Transpower and its maintenance contractor owed a duty of care could vary between businesses.
On 20 June 2024, a Northland transmission tower, Tower 130, fell during maintenance. Both defendants accepted that the contractor, Electrix, trading as Omexom, removed nuts securing three of the tower’s four legs to their base plates at once.
A paint coatings business, Skibo, and a Russell food and beverage store, Hold Group, trading as Delish, alleged that Transpower and Omexom negligently caused the collapse. With a litigation funder’s backing, they sought to represent all affected Northland businesses on an opt-out basis.
Skibo claimed $5,355 in lost gross profit and Delish approximately $1,399.50 in lost ice cream stock. Transpower’s evidence included compensation claims of around $420,000 and almost $900,000 from what appeared to be large industrial or semi-industrial users.
The court accepted that the businesses shared a similar interest at a high level, as all received power from a network that relied on supply via Tower 130. However, it held that the duty of care also had to be common, and that it could not decide breach without first establishing the duty.
The court said that whether a duty existed turned on foreseeability, proximity, and policy, and that each could differ across the class. It noted that it could not safely determine foreseeability without knowing the nature of the loss. It also pointed out that large users commonly had bespoke arrangements with their suppliers, and that protective steps, such as insurance or backup generators, would differ.
Guided by the Court of Appeal’s approach in a proposed cladding class action, the court agreed with the defendants that the answer to the duty question would be “it depends.” It warned of a risk of “an evidentiary vacuum” about claimants beyond the two named businesses. It added that a finding against the plaintiffs on duty would effectively bind class members who did not opt out and whose claims might be stronger.
The court was not satisfied that the claim was unarguable, and it found that the interests of justice and the need for deterrence favoured the orders. Still, the possibility that the case would not proceed without opt-out orders could not, by itself, overcome the lack of clearly common issues on key points.
The court declined the application, finding that the two businesses were not “sufficiently representative” of the full class. It said that the plaintiffs and their funder could consider recasting the application or proceeding on an opt-in basis.
