Pfisterer v Claims Resolution Service Limited

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 130/2023
[2024] NZSC 18

BETWEEN	LUCIA RENATE PFISTERER Applicant
AND	CLAIMS RESOLUTION SERVICE LIMITED First Respondent GRANT SHAND BARRISTERS AND SOLICITORS Second Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook and Kós JJ
Counsel:	M S Smith and R J Lynn for Applicant A R B Barker KC for First Respondent A B Darroch and B A Mathers for Second Respondent
Judgment:	5 March 2024

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay each respondent costs of $1,250.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant entered into a “no win, no pay” contract with the first respondent to facilitate the resolution of her insurance claim. The second respondent was subsequently engaged to file proceedings against the applicant’s insurer. However, the applicant’s relationship with the second respondent broke down and she engaged new lawyers.
When the first respondent sought to recover fees for its services, the applicant raised several affirmative defences and counterclaims against both respondents. These encompassed unconscionable bargain, breach of contract, misleading and deceptive conduct, and breach of fiduciary duty.
The High Court largely found against the applicant.[1] It found two breaches of fiduciary duty by the second respondent, but that these breaches were not causative of loss.[2] No relief was awarded.
[1]Claims Resolution Service Ltd v Pfisterer [2021] NZHC 1088 (Hinton J) [HC judgment].
[2]Namely, by failing to obtain and follow informed instructions on settlement and to keep client information confidential: at [156] and [158].
The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s decision.[3]

Proposed appeal

[3]Pfisterer v Claims Resolution ServiceLtd [2023] NZCA 511 (Cooper P and Katz J). The Court of Appeal also upheld the High Court's decision on interest and costs: Claims Resolution Service Ltd v Pfisterer [2021] NZHC 1943 (Hinton J).

The applicant seeks leave to appeal to this Court against the Court of Appeal decision. The grounds of the proposed appeal largely mirror those argued in the lower Courts. Broadly, she challenges the legitimacy of the first respondent’s business arrangements, contract and relationship with the second respondent.

Our assessment

The proposed appeal does not meet the statutory criteria for leave.[4] The applicant argues her submissions raise issues of general importance and will impact other proceedings issued against the respondents. However, the emphasis of the appeal must be to challenge factual findings made in the lower Courts which involve certain adverse credibility findings against the applicant.[5] The proposed appeal accordingly raises no question of public or general importance.[6] Nor, for the same reason, does it involve any matter of general commercial significance.[7] We also find there is no risk of a substantial miscarriage of justice (as that expression is used in a civil context) if the appeal is not heard, there being no evident error in the reasoning of the lower Courts.[8]

Result

[4]Senior Courts Act 2016, s 74.

[5]HC judgment, above n 1, at [60]–[64].

[6]Senior Courts Act, s 74(2)(a).

[7]Section 74(2)(c).

[8]Section 74(2)(b); and see Junior Farms Ltd v Hampton Securities Ltd (in liq) [2006] NZSC 60, (2006) 18 PRNZ 369 at [5].

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant must pay each respondent costs of $1,250.

Solicitors:
GCA Lawyers, Christchurch for Applicant
Canterbury Legal, Christchurch for First Respondent
Darroch Forrest Lawyers, Wellington for Second Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lucia Renata Pfisterer sought leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal's decision which upheld the High Court's findings that she was not entitled to relief against Claims Resolution Service Limited and Grant Shand Barristers and Solicitors. Pfisterer's appeal was grounded in the contention that the first respondent's business arrangements and the contractual relationship with the second respondent were inherently problematic, and that these issues warranted the Court's attention. The respondents argued that the appeal did not meet the statutory criteria for leave, particularly in terms of raising questions of general importance or public interest, and that there was no evident error in the lower courts' reasoning.

The Supreme Court examined the proposed grounds for the appeal and determined that they largely mirrored the arguments already considered and rejected by the lower courts. The Court focused on the applicant's credibility and the factual findings adverse to her. It concluded that the appeal did not raise any issues of general importance or public significance, nor did it involve any matter of general commercial importance. Furthermore, the Court found that there was no risk of a substantial miscarriage of justice if the appeal was not heard, as the lower courts had not erred in their reasoning.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The applicant was ordered to pay each respondent $1,250 in costs. The Court's decision reinforced the importance of meeting the statutory criteria for leave to appeal and highlighted the necessity for appeals to raise issues of public or general importance. The Court's ruling also underscored the principle that appeals should not be used to relitigate issues already determined by lower courts, unless there is a clear error or significant public interest involved.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established