Collis v Hypower Electrical Limited - [2016] NZHC 2686

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CIV-2015-409-000163 [2016] NZHC 2686

BETWEEN
MICHAEL COLLIS and KEITH

CHARLES LANGTON Plaintiffs

AND

HYPOWER ELECTRICAL LIMITED First Defendant

AND

WAYNE MARK HYDES Second Defendant

Hearing: 7 November 2016

Appearances:

G M Brodie and A G M Whalan for the Plaintiffs
P J L Hunt and T W Clark for the Defendants

Judgment:

10 November 2016

JUDGMENT AS TO REASONS OF NATION J

[1] In these proceedings, the plaintiffs seek damages from the defendants following the loss of a reasonably substantial hut located in an area, largely of bush, near Kaikoura. The hut was destroyed in a fire that occurred on 25 October 2014.

[2] The plaintiffs filed proceedings on 30 March 2015. On 30 November 2015, Associate Judge Matthews made timetabling directions.1 These included a direction that the close of pleadings date was to be 8 July 2016. On 11 February 2016 the proceedings were set down for hearing for ten days beginning 7 November 2016.

[3] On 4 November 2016, counsel for the plaintiffs, Mr Brodie, by memorandum, effectively sought leave from the Court to amend the statement of
claim. Counsel for the defendants filed a memorandum indicating the application

1 Collis v Hypower Electrical Ltd HC Christchurch CIV-2015-409-000163, 30 November 2015.

would be opposed. Because of my unavailability, the issue was discussed in telephone conferences with Davidson J on 4 November 2016.

[4] Further memoranda, including the draft amended statement of claim, were then filed by counsel. The parties’ positions with regard to the amendment remained the same. I heard argument when the proceedings were called. After hearing argument, I ruled that I would allow the amendment; I also refused the defendants’ request for an adjournment of the trial.2 I now give reasons for both decisions.

[5] The defendants are a company and its director who carried out substantial work on the hut between January 2014 and May 2014. That work related to the installation of a solar powered electricity supply to the hut, integrated with electricity supplied from a generator (the integrated power system).

[6] No person was at the hut when the fire occurred on 25 October 2014. Because of the location of the hut, no one was able to fight the fire after it started. This led to the almost complete destruction of the building and difficulties in identifying what had caused the fire.

[7] In their first statement of claim, the plaintiffs alleged the defendants had failed to carry out the electrical work required of them with the required skill and care. In making that general allegation, they included six particulars. It was apparent from those particulars that they identified the fire as originating from a cupboard in which were installed various components relating to the integrated power system. One of the particulars alleged a particular fault in that the system had been installed and left operational by the defendants with only one power inverter in place and working when two were required.

[8] The…

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 Collis v Hypower Electrical Limited

Details

AGLC: Collis v Hypower Electrical Limited [2016] NZHC 2686
Case: [2016] NZHC 2686
Decision Date: 10 November 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Collis v Hypower Electrical Limited involved a claim for damages following the destruction of a hut by fire. The plaintiffs sought damages from the defendants, a company and its director, who had carried out electrical work on the hut prior to the fire. The defendants denied liability and the case proceeded to trial. The plaintiffs sought leave to amend their pleadings to include an additional cause of action under the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993. The defendants opposed the amendment, arguing it would prejudice their case and require an adjournment of the trial.

The court considered the principles governing amendments to pleadings, including the importance of adherence to Court directions and the need to avoid unnecessary delays. However, the court recognised that amendments may be necessary where original pleadings are inadequate, provided it can be done without causing injustice. The court noted that the defendants had been aware since shortly after the fire that the plaintiffs were alleging the fire resulted from a fault in the electrical system. Given the expert evidence, the court found that the defendants were unlikely to require further investigations and that denying the amendment would potentially deprive the plaintiffs of remedies available to them under the Consumer Guarantees Act.

The court allowed the amendment to the pleadings but refused the defendants' request for an adjournment, considering it unjust to delay the proceedings further. The case was settled on the second day of the hearing.

This decision highlights the importance of ensuring that pleadings adequately address the issues in dispute and that amendments are considered in the context of the overall administration of justice. The court balanced the need for procedural fairness with the risk of depriving parties of available remedies.

Orders