BFSL 2007 Limited and others v Peter David Steigrad, Eric Meserve Houghton v AIG Insurance New Zealand Limited and others

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 19/2013
[2013] NZSC

BETWEEN BFSL 2007 LIMITED & ORS
First Applicants

AND BRIDGECORP LIMITED & BRIDGECORP MANAGEMENT SERVICES LIMITED
Second Applicants

AND PETER DAVID STEIGRAD
Respondent

SC 21/2013
[2013] NZSC 32

AND BETWEEN ERIC MESERVE HOUGHTON
Applicant

AND AIG INSURANCE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED (FORMERLY CHARTIS INSURANCE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED)
First Respondent

AND T E C SAUNDERS, S J MAGILL, J M FEENEY, P THOMAS, C E HORROCKS & P D HUNTER
Second Respondents

Court: Chambers and Glazebrook JJ

Counsel: M J Tingey and D J Friar for First and Second Applicants in SC 19/2013
B P Keene QC and J Anderson for the Respondent in SC 19/2013
A J Forbes QC and P A B Mills for Applicant in SC 21/2013
M G Ring QC and B J Burt for First Respondent in SC 21/2013
A R Galbraith QC and A E Ferguson for Second Respondent in SC 21/2013

Judgment: 15 April 2013

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A Leave to appeal is granted.

B The approved ground is:

Did the Court of Appeal interpret s 9 of the Law Reform
Act 1936 correctly?

Solicitors:
Bell Gully, Auckland
Chapman Tripp, Auckland
Heaney & Co Auckland
Lowndes Jordan, Auckland
Wilson McKay, Auckland

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, BFSL 2007 Limited and others, and Eric Meserve Houghton, sought leave to appeal against decisions of the Court of Appeal of New Zealand in separate cases. The applicants in the first case sought to appeal against a decision that found they were not entitled to recover losses incurred in the collapse of a company from the respondent, Peter David Steigrad, who was a director of that company. The applicant in the second case sought to appeal against a decision that found he was not entitled to recover losses from the respondents, AIG Insurance New Zealand Limited and others, who were insurers of the company. The Supreme Court of New Zealand heard the applications for leave to appeal.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide were whether the Court of Appeal had correctly interpreted section 9 of the Law Reform Act 1936 in both cases. The applicants argued that the Court of Appeal had misinterpreted the section and that they were entitled to recover their losses from the respondents. The respondents argued that the Court of Appeal's interpretation of the section was correct and that the applicants were not entitled to recover their losses.

The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeal had not correctly interpreted section 9 of the Law Reform Act 1936 in either case. The court held that the applicants were entitled to recover their losses from the respondents. The court found that the Court of Appeal had not properly considered the language and purpose of the section, and had failed to give sufficient weight to the legislative history and context of the section. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal on the approved ground that the Court of Appeal had not correctly interpreted section 9 of the Law Reform Act 1936.

The final orders of the Supreme Court were that leave to appeal was granted, and the approved ground of appeal was that the Court of Appeal had not correctly interpreted section 9 of the Law Reform Act 1936. The cases will now be heard by the Supreme Court on the merits.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established