Legal Research
Cases
Ace Developments Ltd v Attorney-General

Ace Developments Ltd v Attorney-General

Case [2017] NZCA 409 18 September 2017

Statutory Interpretation

Compensatory Damages

Relocation Costs

Public Works Act

Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act

Compensation Law

Type to search within this case.

For a Court ready (fee required) version please follow this link

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA538/2016
[2017] NZCA 409

BETWEEN	ACE DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED Appellant
AND	ATTORNEY-GENERAL Respondent

Hearing:	15 June 2017 (further material received 3 July 2017)
Court:	French, Miller and Brown JJ
Counsel:	F M R Cooke QC and G D Jones for Appellant P H Higbee and N C Anderson for Respondent
Judgment:	18 September 2017 at 12.00 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for leave to appeal is granted.
BThe appeal is dismissed.
CThe appellant must pay the respondent costs for a standard appeal on a band A basis together with usual disbursements.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by French J)

Table of Contents

Introduction  [1]
Background  [5]
The High Court decision at issue  [15]
Two jurisdiction issues  [22]
Is the proposed further evidence material to the appeal?                   [30]
           Does the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act preclude             [31]
           compensation for relocation costs?
Are relocation costs “actual loss”?  [39]
  Are relocation costs “economic or consequential loss”?      [41]
  “Except as provided by this Act”  [50]
           Are Ace’s relocation costs recoverable under pt 5 of the              [64]
           Public Works Act?
  Section 66 of the Public Works Act  [67]
  Section 68 of the Public Works Act  [79]
Conclusion  [82]
Outcome  [87]

Introduction

Ace Developments Ltd owned land compulsorily acquired by the Crown under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011. The Associate Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery determined that Ace should receive compensation for the taking based on the market value of the land. Ace disputes this and says compensation should be based on the costs of relocating its business.
Ace filed an appeal in the High Court against the Associate Minister’s determination. That appeal has yet to be heard.
This judgment is about an interlocutory application Ace made in the High Court seeking leave to adduce new evidence at the pending appeal. The application was declined by Gendall J, in part for reasons which if correct mean that Ace’s substantive appeal in that Court is doomed to fail.[1]
[1]Ace Developments Ltd v Attorney-General [2016] NZHC 2467 [High Court Decision].
That has prompted Ace to file an appeal in this Court against Gendall J’s interlocutory decision.

Background

Ace owned land and improvements situated at 115–117 Moorhouse Avenue, Christchurch. It developed the land for use as a car yard and as at 22 July 2014 was leasing the property to a car dealer. On 22 July 2014, the property was compulsorily acquired by the Crown under s 55 of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act for the purposes of a proposed sports stadium.[2]
[2]The Crown compulsorily acquired the land on 22 July 2014 by proclamation: “Land Taken for Metro Sports Facility — Christchurch City” (31 July 2014) 82 New Zealand Gazette 2268. The land vested in the Crown on 14 August 2014.
Section 62 of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act provides that a person who suffers loss resulting from the compulsory acquisition of land is entitled to compensation…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Ace Developments Ltd v Attorney-General

Details

AGLC: Ace Developments Ltd v Attorney-General [2017] NZCA 409
Case: [2017] NZCA 409
Decision Date: 18 September 2017 at 12.00 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ace Developments Ltd, a car dealership, sought leave to adduce new evidence in an appeal it had filed against the Associate Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery's decision to compensate Ace for the compulsory acquisition of its property at 115-117 Moorhouse Avenue, Christchurch, at market value. Ace argued that it was entitled to compensation based on the costs of relocating its business. The High Court declined Ace's application for leave to adduce new evidence. Ace appealed to the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. Ace argued the High Court had erred in finding the new evidence was not material to the appeal because it was not relevant to the statutory interpretation issue before the Court, namely whether the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act precluded compensation for relocation costs. Ace also argued the new evidence should be admitted because it demonstrated the reasonableness of the sums it claimed it would need to spend to create the replication property. The Court held the appeal was governed by the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act. The Court held that compensation for relocation costs was excluded from the statutory definition of compensation under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act because it was economic or consequential loss. The Court held that there was no provision in the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act that provided for compensation for relocation costs. The Court held that compensation for the cost of acquiring a substitute property was not recoverable under s 66 of the Public Works Act. The Court held that other incidental relocation costs which had not already been taken into account when calculating the market value of the land taken may be recoverable, depending on whether they were reasonable and to the extent they did not contain an element of betterment. The Court held that the proposed new evidence Ace wanted to adduce was not relevant and therefore inadmissible. The Court held that even if the proposed new evidence was relevant it was not material to the appeal because there were no special reasons for hearing the evidence. The application for leave to appeal was granted. The appeal was dismissed. The appellant must pay the respondent costs for a standard appeal on a band A basis together with usual disbursements.

Orders