Claims Resolution Service Limited v Roberts - [2020] NZHC 2605

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2020-409-197

[2020] NZHC 2605

UNDER the District Courts Act 2014

BETWEEN

CLAIMS RESOLUTION SERVICE LIMITED

Appellant

AND

JAMIE ROBERTS

First Respondent

NATASHA MAREE ROBERTS

Second Respondent

CIV-2019-409-704

UNDER

the District Courts Act 2014

BETWEEN

THE STAPLES GROUP LIMITED

Appellant

AND

RACHAEL LOUISE BEETON

Respondent

Hearing: 21 July 2020

Appearances:

D Ballantyne and R D Ashton for Appellants

R Lynn and B Hood for Respondents N and J Roberts Respondent R Beeton in Person

Judgment:

5 October 2020

JUDGMENT OF MANDER J

CLAIMS RESOLUTION SERVICE LIMITED v ROBERTS [2020] NZHC 2605 [5 October 2020]

This judgment was delivered by me on 5 October 2020 at 4.30 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date: .

[1] Claims Resolution Service Ltd (Claims Resolution) and its parent company The Staples Group Ltd (Staples Group) appeal separate decisions by the District Court to adjourn two sets of proceedings in that Court pending developments in a representative action against Claims Resolution taken in this Court by former clients.1

[2] On 14 September 2017, Claims Resolution issued a proceeding against Jamie and Natasha Roberts (the Robertses) to recover various costs and fees it claimed were owed by the Roberts. The Robertses denied their liability and pleaded affirmative defences, including breach of fiduciary duty by Claims Resolution, for which they claim damages. The Robertses obtained an adjournment of the District Court proceeding pending further order of that Court to allow them the opportunity to take steps to join the representative action.

[3] Rachael Beeton is being sued by Staples Group in defamation for comments she made on a Facebook page. She is defending that claim. As with the Robertses, Ms Beeton’s partner, Simon Risdon, is being sued by Claims Resolution for unpaid amounts it has invoiced for its services. That claim is denied by Mr Risdon on broadly the same grounds as the Robertses’, including alleged breaches of fiduciary obligations by Claims Resolution. As a result of Ms Beeton’s application to have the defamation claim stayed or deferred until a determination of her partner’s case, the District Court adjourned the defamation proceeding.

[4] Because the two appeals raise similar issues, particularly as to the jurisdiction of the District Court to adjourn the proceedings, a direction was made that the two appeals be heard together.2

Background

Claims Resolution v Roberts

[5] The Robertses’ home was damaged in the earthquakes that struck Christchurch in 2010 and 2011. They filed claims with the Earthquake Commission and their insurance company. Claims Resolution offered an insurance advocacy and litigation

1 Smith v Claims Resolution Service Ltd [2019] NZHC 127.
2 Claims Resolution Service Ltd v Roberts HC Christchurch CIV-2020-409-197, 10 June 2020.

funding service. The Robertses entered into an agreement with Claims Resolution to be provided with these services, in consideration for which they agreed to pay various costs, fees, disbursements and a commission on the final settlement…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Claims Resolution Service Limited v Roberts and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2020] NZHC 2605
Decision Date: 5 October 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

- Parties: Claims Resolution Service Limited and The Staples Group Limited are the appellants in the case against Jamie Roberts, Natasha Roberts, and Rachael Beeton. The respondents are Jamie Roberts, Natasha Roberts, Rachael Beeton, and Simon Risdon.
- Nature of the dispute: The case revolves around two separate proceedings, one involving the Robertses and the other involving Rachael Beeton and Simon Risdon. Both cases are related to claims against Claims Resolution Service Limited, a subsidiary of The Staples Group Limited. The Robertses are seeking to join a representative action against Claims Resolution, while Rachael Beeton is defending a defamation claim against Staples Group.
- Court: The High Court of New Zealand, Christchurch Registry, heard the appeals from the District Court's decisions.

The legal issues the court was required to decide were:

1. Whether the District Court had jurisdiction to adjourn or stay the proceedings in the Roberts and Beeton cases.
2. Whether the District Court erred in not setting a specific date for the adjournment or imposing conditions on the stay.
3. Whether the District Court Judge exercised his discretion fairly and appropriately, taking into account relevant factors and avoiding irrelevant considerations.

The court's reasoning and outcome were as follows:

1. The court determined that the District Court had jurisdiction to adjourn or stay the proceedings in both cases. The court found that the District Court had the inherent power to manage and control its proceedings, and that the rules governing adjournment and stay were applicable in the present situation.
2. The court found that the District Court did not err in not setting a specific date for the adjournment or imposing conditions on the stay. The court noted that the adjournment or stay was a discretionary decision, and that the District Court Judge had considered the competing factors and interests of the parties in exercising his discretion.
3. The court concluded that the District Court Judge did not err in the exercise of his discretion. The court found that the Judge had considered the relevant factors and principles in making his decision, and that the outcome was justified in the interests of justice.

Final orders:

1. Both appeals are dismissed.
2. The Robertses are entitled to scale costs, which are made in accordance with category 2B of the High Court Rules.
3. No costs order is made for Rachael Beeton, who was self-represented.

Orders