Summary judgment – negligence – rental property – property management – agency – damage to rental property – methamphetamine contamination – misrepresentations in trade – Residential Tenancies Act 1986, ss 55, 56(1)(b), 64(3) – Fair Trading Act 1986, ss 9, 11, 13 & 43 – District Court Rules 2014, r 12.2(1) – Pemberton v Chappell [1987] 1 NZLR 1 – International Marketing Corporation Limited v New Zealand Meat Producers Board (1994) 9 PRNZ 532 – Economy Services Limited v Smith & Hughes (1989) 2 NZBLC 103, 582 – Daisley v Whangarei District Council [2018] NZHC 2211 – Riddell v Porteous [1999] 1 NZLR 1 – NZI Bank Limited v Philpott [1990] 2 NZLR 403. The plaintiffs sought summary judgment for negligence against the defendant company, claiming losses totaling $46,074.25. The plaintiffs were owners of a rental property, and the defendant had acted as managers of the property. The plaintiffs subsequently discovered that the property had suffered serious damage, including methamphetamine contamination, during a tenancy that had been managed by the defendant. The plaintiffs argued that the defendant was at fault on several grounds including failing to properly enter a tenancy agreement with the tenant, failing to collect the full amount of the bond, and failing to carry out regular property inspections during the tenancy. The plaintiffs also alleged breaches of the Fair Trading Act (FTA) by the defendant, namely misleading or deceptive conduct and making false or misleading representations. The Court stated that some of the plaintiffs' claims in negligence, including that the defendant should have obtained a tenancy agreement from the tenant, were uncontroversial. However for some of the other claims, it was unclear that the defendant had caused the plaintiffs' losses. For example it was possible that the methamphetamine contamination had occurred before the tenancy at issue in the current proceedings. Similarly, the plaintiffs could not show that any representations by the defendant rose to the level of FTA breaches; indeed, in most cases it was at least reasonably arguable that the defendant's representations were true. The applications for summary judgment were dismissed. Judgment Date: 19 August 2020.