Hood v Earthquake Commission - [2019] NZHC 349

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2016-409-001024

[2019] NZHC 349

BETWEEN
RACHEL MARY HOOD

Plaintiff

AND

EARTHQUAKE COMMISSION

Defendant

AND

IAG NEW ZEALAND LIMITED

Second Defendant

Hearing: 5 February 2019

Appearances:

G D R Shand and A Mackey for Plaintiff K Rouch for First Defendant

Judgment:

5 March 2019

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

AThe defendant’s application for review is allowed and the costs award of
$3,345 against the defendant is set aside.

B Extension of time is granted for plaintiff to bring an application for review. C The plaintiff’s application for review is dismissed.
DThe plaintiff is to pay the defendant costs on her costs application to the High Court on a 2A basis plus reasonable disbursements.

DThe plaintiff is to pay the defendant costs on this application on a 2A basis plus usual disbursements.

HOOD v EARTHQUAKE COMMISSION [2019] NZHC 349 [5 March 2019]

Introduction

[1] A key principle of the High Court Rules 2016 costs regime is that, so far as possible, the determination of costs should be “predictable and expeditious”.1

[2] That principle is particularly important in cases managed in the High Court Earthquake List. The List is intended to see earthquake cases dealt with as swiftly as the Court’s resources permit. It encourages early resolution of cases by getting the parties’ respective experts together to refine and isolate points of genuine difference with a view to shortening trials and, where possible, reaching settlement.

[3] Because this process will usually result in an agreed settlement, it is important, too, that parties have clear expectations about what costs are likely to be awarded should the Court have to determine costs. That will mean that these, too, can more readily be settled without Court intervention.

[4] This application for review involves a modest costs award of $3,345 against EQC. However, the applicant, EQC, considers that in awarding those costs the Judge erred in principle and acted inconsistently with other decided cases on costs in earthquake cases. EQC says that it is important that costs decisions in earthquake cases are consistent and predictable in order to assist parties in achieving settlement of such cases.

[5] The plaintiff, Ms Hood, opposes the application for review. She says the award of additional costs (over and above that paid voluntarily by EQC) was not erroneous. She also asks the Court to consider her “cross-application” for review of the Judge’s decision to only award the plaintiff 50 per cent of 2B costs because she settled against the second defendant, IAG New Zealand Ltd (IAG), without seeking costs from it.

1 High Court r 14.2(1)(g).

The costs decision

[6] The award of $3,345 in additional costs against EQC was given in a decision dated 12 September 2018 following settlement of Ms Hood’s claim for earthquake damage to her home.2

[7] EQC’s initial assessment was that it would cost $10,729 to repair Ms Hood’s home. That was not accepted, and Ms Hood issued these proceedings…

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 Hood v Earthquake Commission

Details

AGLC: Hood v Earthquake Commission [2019] NZHC 349
Case: [2019] NZHC 349
Decision Date: 5 March 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Hood v Earthquake Commission, the plaintiff, Rachel Hood, sought a review of a costs decision made by an Associate Judge in relation to a settlement of a claim for earthquake damage to her home. Hood claimed that the Earthquake Commission (EQC) had not paid her the full amount of costs she was entitled to receive. EQC, in turn, sought a review of the Associate Judge's decision, arguing that the award of costs was erroneous. EQC's application for review was allowed and the costs award was set aside. Hood's application for review was dismissed. The Court held that the Associate Judge erred in principle when he awarded costs for discovery and inspection on a Band B basis. The Court found that the Associate Judge's approach to determining the time allocation for these steps was not in line with the principles set out in the High Court Rules 2016. The Court also found that the Associate Judge erred in awarding all the costs for inspection to EQC, as the claim for two and a half days for inspection should have been shared between the parties. The Court granted an extension of time for Hood to bring an application for review and dismissed her cross-application for review of the Associate Judge's decision to only award her 50 per cent of 2B costs because she settled against the second defendant, IAG New Zealand Ltd, without seeking costs from it. The Court held that the Associate Judge's decision to award 50 per cent of the costs against EQC was correct, as there was no material distinction between the position in this case and the Aulds' case reviewed in Deo Gratias Developments Ltd v Tower Insurance Ltd. The Court awarded costs to EQC on a 2A basis, along with the usual disbursements.

Orders