Earthquake Commission v Whiting

The Earthquake Commission (EQC) has appealed against three High Court decisions awarding costs to the respective first respondents (the plaintiffs) when they discontinued their High Court proceedings against EQC arising out of the Canterbury earthquakes. EQC submits that the respective High Court Judges erred in their costs decisions by making significant errors of principle and fact when finding that the plaintiffs had rebutted the presumption under r 15.23 of the High Court Rules which provides that a plaintiff who discontinues a proceeding against a defendant must pay costs to the defendant of and incidental to the proceeding up to and including the discontinuance. The first respondents in the second appeal (Mr van Limburg) and the third appeal (Mr and Mrs Ryde) also cross-appeal against the decisions of Kós J in their cases awarding them only 50 per cent of their costs in the High Court. They claim they should have been awarded 100 per cent of their costs. The second respondents (the first respondents' private insurers) have taken no part in the appeals. EQC acknowledges that as the appeals are against discretionary decisions it must persuade us that there was an error of law or principle in the High Court decisions, irrelevant considerations were taken into account, relevant considerations were not taken into account or the decisions were plainly wrong. The Court held that the appeals and cross-appeals were dismissed and that in each appeal EQC must pay the first respondents' costs for a standard appeal on a band A basis with usual disbursements. The first respondents in CA708/2014 and CA709/2014 must pay EQC's costs on their cross-appeals for a standard appeal on a band A basis with usual disbursements.